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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about whether results are paginated, whether authentication is required, or what happens for a package with no listed maintainers.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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-param read with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but leaves the return shape (a list of names? roles? emails?) unstated, which an agent would need in order to use the result correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents it fully ('Package name on hex.pm'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('package owners and maintainers'), which disambiguates a terse tool name that could otherwise read as ownership management. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like info or dependencies, but the resource is concrete enough for selection.

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 gives no indication of when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as info, versions, or dependencies, and states no preconditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource noun.

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