get_vulnerability_discoveries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly confirm it, nor does it mention pagination, response format, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and easy to parse. However, it is extremely terse, lacking any additional context that might be expected for a tool with no annotations or output schema, so it does not fully earn the top score for structure.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to provide context about the return format and behavior. It fails to explain what 'discovery history' contains, how pagination works, or what the response structure is, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that might return varied historical data.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema already documents size, index, and vulnerability_id, the description does not need to compensate.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('discovery history for a vulnerability'), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_vulnerability (which retrieves vulnerability details) and list_vulnerabilities (which lists vulnerabilities). The verb+object structure is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. It is a bare statement that leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone, offering no differentiation from related tools.

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