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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) are provided. The description adds details: fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, mentions partial failures, timing issue (first measurement 5-30s), and sources_failed list. No contradiction.

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?

Description is somewhat long but well-structured: starts with summary, then usage guidance, output details, and caveats. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (composite, multiple sources) and no output schema, the description provides detailed return fields, error handling, and timing caveats. Completely adequate for agent selection and invocation.

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 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds context: scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest. This adds value beyond schema.

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 it's a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency', and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence) by focusing on npm packages.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also notes NPM only in v1 and directs to deps.dev for other ecosystems, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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