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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention response format, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. For a simple lookup it's safe, but the description offers no insight beyond the basic purpose, which is a gap given no other metadata.

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 very brief, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. It is a single sentence without any structure that helps the agent understand usage. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative while still being concise, so it earns a middle score.

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?

Even for a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input parameter, the output schema (even though one exists), or any limitations. Given the lack of annotations and the minimal description, an agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 input schema has one parameter q with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention q at all. It fails to explain what q represents (presumably the module path). With no compensation from the description, the agent is left guessing the parameter's meaning, which is a critical omission.

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 states the tool retrieves the latest version of a Go module via the module proxy. This is a specific verb (get/retrieve) and resource (Go module latest version), with the proxy context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like goproxy or golangpkg, which likely also deal with Go modules, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate without any comparison to siblings.

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