Lists endpoints in an organization affected by a specific vulnerability

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds a permission requirement ('Perm: view_vulnerabilities') but does not elaborate on pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond 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 short (two sentences) but the second sentence ends with an ellipsis, suggesting truncation. It is not as structured as it could be, lacking bullet points or clear separation of concepts.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, output schema present, many sibling tools), the description should provide more context on filtering, sorting, pagination, and output. It only mentions permission and a vague scope, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 no additional meaning for any parameters, such as the required 'cve_id' or optional filters and pagination controls.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as 'endpoints affected by a specific vulnerability', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_endpoints' and 'list_vulnerabilities'. However, the second sentence is redundant and the ellipsis suggests incompleteness.

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 usage when needing endpoints for a CVE but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison to similar list tools like 'list_endpoints' or 'list_org_vulnerabilities'.

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