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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds a behavioral warning about timeout on broad fragments and mentions 'Keyless' (no auth needed). This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing potential failure modes and auth requirements.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose+scope, output format+relationship to sibling, and usage condition+keyless note. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundancy or filler.

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?

All parameters are described in schema, output format is illustrated, and behavioral caveats (timeout, keyless) are covered. The tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing. Could mention pagination explicitly, but the limit parameter is self-explanatory.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('express', 'lodash', 'requests'), warning about timeouts on common fragments, and giving the exact output format with an example coordinate string. This enriches parameter understanding 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?

States a specific verb (Find), a clear resource (ClearlyDefined component coordinates), and scope (by name pattern across many ecosystems). It explicitly links its output to clearlydefined_definition, distinguishing it from that sibling tool. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you know a package name but not its exact ecosystem/namespace/version') and implies the alternative (clearlydefined_definition for exact coordinates). It doesn't list explicit exclusions but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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