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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds little behavioral context beyond the core resolution behavior, such as how invalid ranges, prerelease versions, or dist-tags are handled, which limits transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated schema content. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's core function.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with examples, an output schema, and a read-only annotation set, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of behavior around invalid ranges or prerelease/tag resolution, but an agent can still call it correctly with package_name and an optional range.

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 only 50%, with package_name left undocumented in the schema. The description adds the useful idea of tags in addition to semver ranges, going beyond the range property's schema text, but it does not clarify package_name semantics or tag resolution behavior.

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 names a specific operation—resolving a semver range or tag—and its output, a concrete published version. This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_npm_versions without ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer resolve_version over alternatives such as list_npm_versions or scan_dependency, and no exclusions are provided. The only usage signal is the implied scenario of needing to pin a range or tag to an exact version, which is not made explicit.

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