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

The description explains that Go has no centralized download counter, so the profile is GitHub-primary and stars are used as the popularity proxy. This discloses behavioral characteristics about the data source and interpretation beyond what the schema/annotations provide. No annotations exist, so this context is essential for understanding the returned signals.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then details signals, ecosystem context, use cases, and examples. It is well-structured and each paragraph serves a clear function, though the example list is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the exact signals returned, the ecosystem rationale, and typical use cases. With only one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the output by enumerating the signals (module age, version count, etc.). This is complete for a lookup tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'module' parameter with details about full path, host, examples, and case-sensitivity. The description repeats the examples but adds context about the Go ecosystem's reliance on the module path. However, it doesn't add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Get a behavioral commitment profile for any Go module on proxy.golang.org', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also lists the signals returned and distinguishes itself from sibling ecosystem lookup tools by focusing on Go modules. This clearly states the tool's function.

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 explicitly states 'Useful for: vetting Go dependencies before adding to go.mod, identifying abandonware, supply chain risk assessment.' This provides clear usage context for when to invoke the tool. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is sufficient to infer appropriate use within the Go ecosystem.

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