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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the core operation, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations handling the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and directly communicates the purpose. Every word contributes value, with 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) that likely explains return values, and annotations cover safety traits. The description is sufficient for a simple resolution task, though it omits edge cases like error conditions. It is complete enough for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 coverage is 50%: 'range' has a description but 'package_name' does not. The description adds meaning by explicitly mentioning 'semver range or tag', indicating that the range parameter also accepts tags (e.g., 'latest', 'next'), which is not stated in the schema's 'Semver range' description. This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('semver range or tag') and outcome ('concrete published version'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_npm_versions or resolve_entity by focusing on version resolution.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a concrete version from a semver range or tag) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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