epss_bulk_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does state the output behavior: returns a sorted list with risk tiers. It doesn't cover errors, rate limits, or exact tier definitions, but the read-only lookup nature is implied and no contradiction exists.

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?

Three focused sentences with the main action first and no filler. Every sentence adds useful context about what the tool does, why it matters, and when to use it.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input, the primary behavior, and the return shape (sorted list with risk tiers). It could add CVE format guidance or tier definitions, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The schema already fully documents cve_ids and the max of 100; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reaffirming multiple CVEs. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Batch EPSS score lookup') and target ('multiple CVEs'), and the phrase 'Batch' plus 'multiple' distinguishes it from sibling epss_score_lookup. The purpose of ranking by exploit probability is also clearly conveyed.

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?

Gives concrete use contexts: prioritizing patching and enriching scanner output. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer epss_score_lookup for a single CVE, but the batch framing makes that boundary reasonably clear.

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