Detailed information on a specific vulnerability within an organization…

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints. Description adds permission requirement ('Perm: view_vulnerabilities'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., org-specific, caching, pagination). No annotation contradiction.

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?

Brief (two sentences) but somewhat incomplete (ends with 'Retrieves detailed...'). Lacks structure, could be more concise while adding missing details about org and format.

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?

Despite having output schema and annotations, description feels incomplete: doesn't specify that org_id is optional, doesn't mention response_format parameter, and omits what 'detailed' includes beyond attack vector. For a 4-param tool, more context expected.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. Description mentions 'attack vector' which hints at cve_id purpose but adds no new information beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description states it provides detailed vulnerability info including attack vector, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_cve_description (only description) and list_cve_endpoints (endpoint listing). However, lacks explicit mention of what 'detailed' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Missing explicit context like 'use this for full CVE details, use get_cve_description for just the description'.

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