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

The description adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: the composite fan-out to two APIs, graceful degradation with a 5-30s possible delay on bundlephobia's first measurement, and the sources_failed field that reports timeouts. It also clarifies that partial failures still return data. Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so this is additive.

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 for the tool's complexity, front-loading the core purpose and use-case in the first two clauses. It packs return fields, ecosystem limits, and failure behavior into a few sentences without repetition 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?

For a composite tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it lists all key return fields, explains ecosystem scope, and details failure semantics. It even covers operational quirks like the 5-30s first measurement, making it fully self-contained for an agent to call without surprises.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (package name with scoped-package note, version with default behavior). The description reinforces that version is optional and defaults to latest, but doesn't add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 defines the tool as a composite dependency-risk check for npm packages, naming the specific data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the question it answers ('should I add this npm package'). It's distinct from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence and validate_claim, which address different domains.

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 states when to use ('whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"') and gives a concrete example (adding lodash). It also provides an exclusion rule: for non-npm ecosystems, use 'deps.dev:version' directly, which serves as an alternative.

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