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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a per-call cost of $0.02 via x402, and an enumeration of the returned fields (status values, risk score, months since update, latest release, signals). This is far more than the annotation conveys, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by cost, then return shape, then interpretive caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the return-field enumeration is slightly list-like.

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?

Since there is no output schema, spelling out the status vocabulary, risk score range, and signal fields is exactly what the description should do. The only gap is the absence of any routing cue relative to the sibling package_sources.

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 only 50%: the 'name' property is documented with concrete examples, but the 'ecosystem' enum has no description. The description partially compensates by naming the three ecosystems (WordPress.org, npm, PyPI), which maps to the enum values, but it adds no format guidance beyond what the name description already provides.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether a WordPress.org plugin, npm package or PyPI project is abandoned'), naming all three ecosystems the tool covers. An agent can immediately tell this apart from package_sources, which implies source retrieval rather than abandonment assessment.

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 closing line, 'Signals, not a verdict: check the project before deciding,' gives useful interpretation guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. the sibling package_sources, nor any statement of when this tool is unnecessary, so usage is only implied.

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