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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON, costs $0.01 USDC per call via x402 (paid automatically by client), and implies no side effects. This is sufficient transparency, though behavior on missing packages is not specified.

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, well-structured sentence: purpose first, then input format, output details, and pricing. Every piece of information is useful and front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly lists the response contents (vulnerabilities with CVSS, fixed-in version, deprecation, license, latest version, repo health, verdict). For a 3-parameter tool, this is complete and leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by listing supported ecosystems (mirroring the enum) and clarifying that version is optional, but it doesn't go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose (assess dependency safety) with specific verb 'check' and resource 'package'. It lists exactly what it returns (vulnerabilities, deprecation, license, etc.), and this unique function distinguishes it from all sibling tools.

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 tells the agent to pass a package name and optional version, and specifies supported ecosystems. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the distinct domain (package security) compared to siblings makes the usage context clear.

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