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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the detection categories (hallucinated names, typosquats, OSV, EPSS, Scorecard), the output format, and even operational context (autonomous agent, free tier). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but significant behavior is disclosed.

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 multi-sentence but every clause contributes: purpose, rationale, detection methods, output interpretation, and operational note. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly verbose but justified by the risk context.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the output format (0-100 risk score), the detection scope, and the recommended usage, making it self-sufficient. Minor gaps include error handling and rate limits, but the 'free tier' note hints at limitations.

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 already documents both parameters with examples and an enum. The description adds context about why the package name matters (LLM hallucination) and how download volume is used, but does not redefine the parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 phrase 'Check whether a software package is safe to install' and clarifies the timing ('BEFORE running npm install or pip install'). It also mentions detection capabilities and the risk score, clearly distinguishing from siblings like check_stack_eol.

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?

The description explicitly states when this tool is essential ('when a package name came from an LLM suggestion') and explains the threat model (slopsquatting). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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