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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it lists the checks performed, mentions the external data source (deps.dev) for advisories, and states that the output is an actionable summary. It does not disclose potential rate limits, external call side effects, or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and the metrics checked, the second states the ecosystem coverage and output type. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a moderately complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format ('summary an agent can act on'), the supported ecosystems, and the specific components of the health check. Minor omissions like not-found behavior and third-party dependency caveats are not critical for basic invocation.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters, including the ecosystem enum and exact name expectations with examples. The description adds context by linking parameters to the health-check purpose, but it does not add new syntactic or formatting details beyond the schema, which is the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'health check' and resource 'package', and enumerates the exact dimensions checked (release recency, deprecation, license, maintainer count, dependency count, security advisories). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that each focus on a single aspect like dependencies or downloads.

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?

'For a package an agent is considering' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and 'Returns a summary an agent can act on' signals its decision-support role. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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