Enrichment Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the overview covers (which source types are included), which is useful, but there's no mention of pagination, freshness of data, or other behavioral details. With strong annotations, baseline credit is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that names the tool's purpose and the enriched sources it covers (CVE/EPSS/KEV, IOC reputation, DNS). Zero wasted words; everything earns its place.

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 tool is a zero-parameter overview with an output schema and strong safety annotations. The description explains what sources are covered and that it provides health/coverage status. For a read-only overview tool with no parameters, this is complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to document any. The baseline 4 for zero-param tools applies, and the description correctly doesn't invent parameter details.

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 states the tool provides a health and coverage overview of enrichment sources (CVE/EPSS/KEV, IOC reputation, DNS, etc.). The verb 'overview' plus resource 'enrichment sources' is reasonably specific and distinct from siblings like get_platform_stats or get_engine_status, though it doesn't explicitly name those as alternatives.

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 this is for checking the status/coverage of enrichment feeds, which is useful context, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Given the large sibling list, some differentiation ('use this to check which enrichment sources are healthy') would help, but the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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