Detailed information on a specific vulnerability in general (not for an…

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

The description discloses that the tool retrieves information and requires the 'view_vulnerabilities' permission, which adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.). It mentions the content includes attack vector, providing insight into the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes essential information like permission and scope. The truncation at 'Retrieves…' is minor and does not hinder clarity. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only tool with detailed annotations and an output schema. It covers the tool's scope (general vulnerability info), permission, and content hints. It could mention error cases or rate limits, but given the annotations, it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the response (e.g., includes attack vector) and the required permission, but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This adds some value, justifying a 4.

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 that the tool provides detailed information on a specific vulnerability, including CVE details like attack vector. It distinguishes itself by noting 'not for an organization', which differentiates it from sibling tools like action1_get_cve that may return organization-specific data. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool by contrasting 'general' vulnerability info with organization-specific data. It also mentions the required permission 'view_vulnerabilities'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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