Batch Vulnerability Scan

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns vulnerability matches and mentions batch nature, but this is expected from the tool name. Additional behavioral details (e.g., response format) are not needed due to output schema.

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 effective sentences: first defines core function and limit, second provides usage example and ideal scenario. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 output schema exists, description adequately covers purpose, input format, and use case. No missing information for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds contextual examples but does not provide new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already sufficiently documents parameters.

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?

Description explicitly states batch vulnerability scanning of up to 100 packages using package+version+ecosystem triples, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like osv.security.get and osv.security.query which handle single packages.

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?

Description gives concrete examples (requirements.txt, package.json) and states ideal use for full dependency tree audits, implying bulk scanning context. Does not explicitly exclude single-package queries but context suggests batch is for multiple.

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