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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It lists six specific fact categories, notes that each fact includes the publisher's address, and clarifies the tool's non-prescriptive nature. This goes well beyond basic read/write disclosure and gives the agent a clear mental model of the response shape and scope.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with an imperative action. The long enumeration of facts is dense but organized, and the final sentence adds useful boundary information. Every sentence earns its place without redundant fluff.

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 no annotations, the description fully compensates by detailing exactly what the tool returns (six specific facts, each with issuer address) and what it does not say. It supplies enough context for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 50% (name is described, registry is not). The description does not explicitly explain the 'registry' parameter or add format details. It provides context about packages and dependencies, but the parameters themselves are not elaborated beyond what the schema already states for 'name'.

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 tool's purpose: to be called before adding a dependency. It enumerates the specific facts returned (withdrawn, scripts, archived, advisories, licence, publish age) and explicitly says 'It does not say whether to install', distinguishing it from a recommendation tool. This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_package or check_provider by focusing on pre-install reviewer concerns.

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?

Provides a clear trigger ('Call this before adding a dependency') and explains what the tool does not do ('does not say whether to install'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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