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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool queries a Go module proxy and requires no key, but it omits rate limits, failure modes, output characteristics, and any side effects or limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a network-querying tool.

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 brief, front-loaded with the tool category, and contains no filler. It earns a 4 because it is economical, though the 'Go Module:' prefix is a label rather than a verb.

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 simple one-parameter tool this might seem adequate, but the input parameter q is completely unexplained and no usage context is provided. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of sibling differentiation leave notable gaps.

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 describes a single parameter q with a default, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention q at all, so it fails to explain what q should contain (e.g., module path, optional version suffix) or how it maps to the 'latest version' behavior.

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 a clear action (get latest version) and resource (Go module via the module proxy), and the '(no key)' qualifier adds useful scoping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like gomod or golangpkg, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gomod or golangpkg. The '(no key)' hint implies it is for keyless access, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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