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

The description does not disclose what type of dependencies are returned (direct vs transitive), any side effects, or the response format. Since no annotations are present, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is too minimal to be fully informative. It earns some points for being concise but loses for lack of substance.

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?

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how it differs from 'dep_tree', or how the output can be used. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description is not harmful but does not enhance clarity.

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 states 'Get dependencies for a package version' which clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'dep_tree' which likely provides a similar but different view of dependencies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dep_tree' or 'compare'. No context is given regarding prerequisites or common use cases.

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