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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the useful scope that all published versions are returned, but it does not disclose details like ordering, prerelease inclusion, or pagination. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single terse sentence that front-loads the core behavior. Every word earns its place and there is no repetition of the title or schema details.

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 low complexity, one required parameter, rich annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing return-format details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only minimal meaning for package_name by associating it with an npm package. The schema examples help, but no extra clarity is given about exact registry naming conventions or scoped package formatting beyond those examples.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns all published versions for a given npm package. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_npm_files and npm_package_stats, which address different facets of a package. The resource and scope are immediately identifiable.

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 implies usage: call this when you need the full version list of an npm package. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving sibling differentiation to the agent.

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