Get Vulnerability Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds value by listing return fields (summary, CVSS severity, affected packages, fix versions, reference links). No contradiction. But lacks details on error handling or performance.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ID types, then return contents. No extraneous information. Efficient and well-structured.

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 (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is fully adequate. It covers input format, output contents, and purpose. No gaps.

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% and description of vuln_id is clear. The description supplements with concrete ID examples (GHSA-xxxx, CVE-2021-xxxxx, PYSEC/RUSTSEC/GO), adding context beyond the schema's generic description.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full vulnerability details by specifying accepted ID types (OSV, CVE, ecosystem). Verb 'retrieve' and resource 'vulnerability details' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on single ID retrieval.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance vs siblings like osv.security.batch or osv.security.query. While the single-ID nature implies individual lookups, the description lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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