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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the paid nature of the call ($0.01 USDC via x402 on Base), lists which sources feed the verdict, and includes an important caveat: a clean verdict means nothing was found, not that the package is guaranteed safe. It does not cover failure or edge-case behavior, but the key traits are disclosed.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: overview of the answer, routing advice versus siblings, verdict interpretation caveat, and cost/payment detail. There is no filler, repetition, or buried context.

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 two-parameter paid audit tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains what the result contains, how much it costs, how it is paid, which sibling tools it replaces, and how to interpret a clean verdict. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the returned judgement.

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?

Both parameters are already described in the input schema, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'advisories affecting the current version,' which lightly enriches the meaning of the name/ecosystem parameters, but it adds no syntax, formatting, or value constraints beyond the schema.

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: 'answers whether a dependency is safe to add,' then enumerates exactly what it returns (version, licence, deprecation, advisories, release age, verdict). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming package_info and package_vulnerabilities as the alternatives it consolidates.

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 to prefer this tool over calling package_info and package_vulnerabilities separately, with clear rationale: one payment instead of two and it applies judgement. However, it does not specify exclusion scenarios where an agent might still want one of the sibling tools directly, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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