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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world; the description adds real behavior beyond that: it checks the source package's health, combines maintainer deprecation hints with npm search category matching, filters out typosquats and stale contenders, and returns whySuggested reasons. No contradiction with annotations.

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 packs the purpose, workflow, filtering logic, output format, and when-to-use into one focused paragraph. The main purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational detail for an agent.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the decision path, ranking/filtering behavior, and expected output shape. An agent can correctly select and invoke it without needing further documentation.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful context by explaining how the source package health check and category-overlap ranking use the name, and how the reason parameter biases filtering and ranking. This pushes it above baseline without being redundant.

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 pairing ('suggest better-maintained alternatives in the same category') and explains the multi-step health-check-and-search process, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_packages or get_package. It even frames the use case as turning a 'don't use this package' warning into a shortlist.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Given a package that looks deprecated, vulnerable, abandoned, or suspicious') and a 'Best for' sentence, so an agent knows when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, which keeps it just below the strongest possible guidance.

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