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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the dependency-policy enforcement, the on-demand fetch-and-score behavior for never-tracked packages, the ~4 second wait budget, and the meaning of a `tracked: false` response including that retrying is required. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a potentially slow, open-world call.

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 purpose followed by selection guidance and the timeout/tracked-false caveat; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense, but no filler or repetition.

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 by enumerating the returned artifacts (scores, signals, advisories, verdict, summary, usage guide) and by explaining the failure/timeout mode and its retry semantics. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting the tool 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?

A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the full contract (name pattern, length bounds). The description adds no format or syntax detail about the package argument, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb ('full evidence read') and resource ('one npm package') and enumerates the concrete outputs: health/quality scores, signals, advisories, safety verdict, summary, usage guide. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'verify' by positioning itself as the deeper read beyond verify's install gate.

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 states the selecting condition: 'Use it when a choice needs more than verify's install gate,' naming the alternative tool and the threshold that favors this one. It does not rule out the other siblings (audit, compare, policy), so it is clear context rather than a complete when/when-not matrix.

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