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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the specific metadata fields returned (e.g., integrity hash, unpacked size, deprecation notice) and explaining version resolution semantics (exact version, dist-tag, or omit for latest). 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and output fields, the second sentence provides usage guidance and version syntax. Every sentence is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool returns, common use cases, and version format options. The annotations cover safety/behavioral traits, and the sibling context shows clear differentiation from similar npm tools.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description largely repeats the version parameter semantics already present in the schema, adding only the contextual phrase about "dependencies of <pkg>@<version>". This provides marginal value beyond the schema but does not meaningfully compensate for any gap.

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: obtaining metadata for a specific version or dist-tag of an npm package, listing the exact fields returned (dependencies, engines, license, tarball hash, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_package and list_versions by focusing on a specific version rather than a package's general info or available versions.

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 provides explicit use cases: "dependencies of <pkg>@<version>", pinned-version audits, and inspecting a particular release. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use cases are clear and contextualized within the sibling tool set.

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