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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important operational behavior: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30 seconds, and sources_failed will list timeouts while the rest still returns. This adds meaningful context about latency and failure modes that annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction 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 moderately long but each clause carries distinct information: composite nature, use cases, return fields, ecosystem scope, and failure behavior. It is well-structured with clear sequencing, though the final sentence is somewhat run-on. Slight over-elaboration but appropriate 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields, per-advisory details, links, and recent alternative versions. It also covers partial failures and latency, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for an agent. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both package and version parameters, including examples and defaults. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, high schema coverage earns a baseline of 3, and there is no additional parameter explanation to raise it.

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 specifies the tool as a composite npm package assessment, naming both data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the specific data points returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping to NPM and referencing direct deps.dev usage for other ecosystems. The verb "scan" plus the resource "dependency" and the detailed explanation make the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me". It also provides an explicit alternative for non-NPM ecosystems (use deps.dev:version directly), making the boundary clear. This goes beyond implied use and gives concrete triggers and exclusions.

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