get_epss_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals cache-first lookup and FIRST.org EPSS API fetching for cache misses, but omits rate limits, auth needs, and error behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then briefly covers cache behavior and the argument. No redundant text; every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, data source, and parameter meaning. The main gap is missing usage routing relative to sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so the description carries full burden for the single parameter. It defines cve_ids as a list of CVE identifiers and provides concrete examples, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare array schema. It could specify count limits or validation, but is sufficient for invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: query EPSS real-time exploitation probability scores for CVEs. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_cve_details and get_top_kevs by naming the exact data type.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The purpose implies usage, but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives for choosing this tool over get_cve_details or search_vulnerabilities.

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