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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the core action and does not reveal what happens when no non-vulnerable version exists, whether the return value is a version string or metadata, how version ordering is determined, or any assumptions about package registries. This lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-focused sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous content.

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, the core purpose is clear, but the description lacks important operational details such as return format, error handling (e.g., if no safe version exists), and edge cases. Without an output schema or annotations, these gaps leave the agent with insufficient information for confident invocation in all scenarios.

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 covers the only parameter 'name' with a clear description and examples (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies, as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Find') and the specific resource ('the most recent version of a package that has no known vulnerabilities'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'is_vulnerable' (checks vulnerability status) and 'lookup' (general package lookup). It is not a tautology and conveys a precise purpose.

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 implies the use case (obtaining the latest safe version of a package) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There are no references to alternatives or exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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