create_sighting

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the authentication requirement ('Requires an API key on most Vulnerability Lookup instances') and the automatic authentication mechanism. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it stops short of describing side effects or return details.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential authentication context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (3 flat parameters, no nested objects), an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety hints, the description covers the key contextual need: authentication. It doesn't explain the return value, but that is presumably addressed by the output schema. A small gap is the lack of guidance on what constitutes a valid 'sighting_type' or 'source', but these are not strictly required for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (vulnerability_id, sighting_type, source) individually described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a sighting for a vulnerability.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly read/search operations. The addition of authentication context further clarifies the tool's nature without ambiguity.

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 by stating it creates a sighting, and mentions the API key requirement, which is a precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling context suggests this is the only create tool, but the description itself provides no comparative guidance, so it earns a middle score.

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