lc_get_vulnerability_epss_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, authentication needs, error behavior, or rate limits. The minimal description fails to provide transparency beyond the basic fetch action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be useful, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. The structure is fine but under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the required organization ID (oid), or the purpose of the days parameter. The tool's complexity demands far more detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It mentions 'one CVE' but does not explain the required 'oid' parameter or the 'days' default. No parameter-level descriptions are provided, leaving critical context for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches 'EPSS score and percentile history for one CVE', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like lc_get_vulnerability_cve (likely CVE details) and lc_list_vulnerability_cves (list of CVEs), though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description merely states the action without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.