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

No annotations exist, so the description should communicate behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any potential side effects. The description lacks essential transparency about its behavior.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary details. While it could be slightly more structured, it is well-suited for a simple tool.

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 the simple input schema and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the output format or the default value for version. While adequate for basic understanding, it could be more complete.

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% with both parameters described clearly. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply states the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'optional features/extras for a package release'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'info' or 'versions' by focusing on optional extras. However, 'features/extras' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The description is purely functional without contextual direction.

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