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

Goes well beyond the annotations: free-tier source is gated on includeSource, pro source is never streamed over MCP, and rather than installing it returns an installCommand with its syntax. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs and cannot infer from readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then conditional behavior, then the explicit non-install contract. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names a return field (installCommand) and the tier constraints on source. It could say a bit more about the metadata shape, but for a small two-parameter read tool it is essentially complete.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'Free source only when includeSource=true' largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since it adds little syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get registry metadata for one component') with an enumerated payload (deps, category, file list). The singular scope clearly contrasts with the list_components and search_components siblings.

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?

Gives clear triggering context via the includeSource=true conditional and states what the tool does NOT do (does not install). It does not explicitly route to list_components/search_components, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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