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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior: a 120-day advisory window, per-line resolution, 'safe: null' plus blocking ids when a line remains affected, unfixed advisories, and a malicious-package flag. Because there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is exactly what the agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then return semantics, then the workflow hint. Dense but each clause carries information; the nested parenthetical about major/minor lines is slightly heavy but earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the response fields (per-line version, safe: null, blocking ids, unfixed advisories, malicious flag). Only minor gaps remain, such as response ordering or how release lines are enumerated.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pattern and examples. The description only restates that it takes 'one npm package,' adding no format or edge-case guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it finds the version to upgrade to for one npm package, per release line. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from the advisory-lookup siblings, which return advisories rather than a chosen target version.

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?

Explicitly sequences it: 'Use it after get_advisories, to pick one target version per line,' which tells the agent exactly where this fits in a workflow. It stops short of naming a when-not condition or an alternative tool for the same job.

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