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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds non-obvious behavioral traits: bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts while other data returns. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core composite purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the length is slightly extended by listing return fields. Still, it remains efficient and clear.

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 the complexity (two sources, partial failures, rich output), the description covers the return structure with field names and mentions alternative versions. Without an output schema, it provides good but not exhaustive detail; the agent gets enough context to understand what to expect.

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 reiterates the schema's parameter details (e.g., scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest) but does not significantly expand beyond what the schema already provides. No new semantic meaning is added.

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: a composite check for evaluating npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency', and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting scope to NPM ecosystem and noting alternatives for other ecosystems.

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 explicit cues for when to use ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and when not to use (NPM only; other ecosystems should use deps.dev:version directly). Also explains graceful degradation of partial failures, offering clear context for decision-making.

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