get_vulnerability

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds useful context about the configurable base URL (default and environment variable override), which is beyond annotation data and helps in deployment contexts. No contradictions 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 two sentences: the first immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential configuration context. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. 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?

Given the simple operation (lookup by ID with optional flags), the annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions provide comprehensive context. The description adds configuration details and source identification, making the tool fully understandable for an agent without external documentation.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely repeats that the lookup is by ID, which is already in the parameter description. No extra syntax or format details are provided.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a vulnerability by its ID from Vulnerability Lookup'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_vulnerabilities and get_recent_vulnerabilities_by_cwe. No 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 use when the agent has a vulnerability ID, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Since sibling tools exist for searching and other lookup modes, explicit exclusions would improve guidance. The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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