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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned metadata types (SPDX licenses, advisoryKeys, links, publish date, deprecation status) and the linkage to get_advisory, which goes beyond the structured annotation data.

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 short paragraphs: a single-sentence summary followed by a bullet-like list of return fields. Every sentence adds value—no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose, and easy to scan.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates expected return fields and explains how to chain to get_advisory. It covers the tool's scope, result contents, and next steps, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), including usage examples for scoped names. The description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic enrichment.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get license, security advisories, and source links for one package version') and then details the exact fields returned. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_advisory (which handles vulnerability details) and get_package (likely for package-wide info) by focusing on a single version.

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool ('for one package version') and explicitly references the next step ('Pass any advisoryKey returned here to get_advisory for the vulnerability details'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with all sibling tools, so it's clear but not complete.

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