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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the typosquatting threat model and the BLOCK/successor result behavior, and it clarifies that identifiers are extracted automatically. There is no contradiction with the 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 most important guidance is front-loaded: call before installs, pass the command exactly, and do not run if BLOCK. The threat-model explanation is somewhat non-operational but earns its place by justifying the mandatory nature of the check, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers when to call it, how to pass the command, and how to handle a BLOCK result. It does not explicitly describe the response for a safe command, but the instruction to act only on BLOCK makes the expected behavior inferable.

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 already fully documents the single `command` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial instruction to pass the command verbatim as it will be run and confirms that identifier extraction is handled by the tool, which removes ambiguity 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 precise directive: call this before running any dependency-installing command, and it enumerates the supported package managers. It also explains the security problem it addresses, making the tool's scope unambiguous even without naming sibling tools.

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 condition ('before running any command that installs a dependency') and lists concrete package-manager commands. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full when-not guidance.

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