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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by clarifying that candidates are not declared safe and require check_dependency_upgrade or plan_dependency_upgrade, which is important behavioral nuance.

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 compact and front-loaded, with clear usage conditions and exclusions in a few sentences. It loses a point because 'Read-only and safe to retry' repeats what the annotations already state, adding slight redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description provides all necessary invocation context: when to use it, when not to use it, what the output does not guarantee, and which sibling tools should be used instead. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about 'exact current version' and the npm/PyPI scope, but it does not meaningfully explain max_major_jump or allow_prerelease beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not substantially enrich parameter understanding.

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 ranks upgrade candidates for existing npm/PyPI dependencies and explicitly distinguishes this from a safety verdict. It references the sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does versus what it does not do.

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 explicit conditions for use: only when an existing dependency has an exact current version but no chosen target. It also states clear exclusions, such as when a target is stated, for new installs, or as authorization to edit files, and directs the agent to the appropriate sibling tools.

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