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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses exactly what the tool returns: headline count, spike-resistant estimate, busiest-day share, version-flood bursts, and a clean/unreliable/inflated verdict. It also explains the underlying detection mechanism. This is a rich behavioral contract that lets an agent predict the tool's output without an 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then the threat model, then the output contract, and closes with usage guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no filler or repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the goal, the detection rationale, the exact return components, the verdict scale, and the recommended usage moment. An agent can decide to call it and interpret its result without further lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, package, is already described with examples in the schema ('e.g. express or @upstash/context7-mcp'). The description references npm packages generally but adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 and resource: 'Check whether an npm package's public download count reflects real adoption.' It names the concrete phenomenon it detects ('download pumping'), describes the exact output components (30-day count, spike-resistant estimate, busiest-day share, version-flood bursts, verdict), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like exploitwatch or slopcheck.

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 explicitly says 'Use before adding or recommending a dependency, especially a new or unfamiliar one,' which gives a clear decision context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name any alternative sibling for comparison, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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