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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing that it never installs or executes package code, that results are definitive rather than advisory, and that a cold set resolves live from the registry and can take ~25 seconds while a previously checked set answers instantly. That latency/caching behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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-loads the purpose and verdicts, then layers constraints and latency. Five sentences, each carrying distinct information, though the note about checking pairs separately is slightly redundant with the schema's packages description.

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 still names the return shape (compatible / conflict with exact clashing constraints / unknown) and covers the peer-dep, engine, and sandbox-conflict checks. Given a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the node, packages, and versions parameters in detail, including exact-version semantics and the 2-30 bound. The description reinforces the whole-set constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Check whether a set of packages forms a coherent stack") and immediately enumerates the verdict space (compatible, conflict, unknown). An agent can distinguish this from file-level siblings like audit or verify without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: call once with the whole stack before committing, because conflicts routinely span the full set. It does not name an alternative sibling tool or state when not to reach for this one, which keeps it short of the top score.

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