List vulnerabilities for an endpoint

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

Annotations already mark it as safe read-only. Description adds useful behavioral context about a 403 error for missing scope, going beyond annotations without 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?

Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second adds a key behavioral detail, front-loaded and efficient.

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 details are covered. Description covers purpose and a common error. Slightly lacking on output scope (e.g., vulnerability types) but adequate.

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 schema fully documents parameters. Description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides, baseline 3 applies.

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 'returns vulnerability findings for one endpoint' providing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like action1_list_org_vulnerabilities by specifying per-endpoint scope.

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?

Implies usage for a single endpoint but lacks explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. No exclusion or comparison with sibling tools like action1_list_cve_endpoints.

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