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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it lists the exact signals returned and states that missing or private repositories return found:false, which is not inferable from the annotations. 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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the first enumerates outputs, the second states the intended use case, and the third handles scope and edge behavior. No filler or redundant phrasing; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately substitutes for return-format documentation by naming all returned signals and the found:false edge case. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers behavior and usage completely.

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 schema already fully documents the single param 'repo' as a GitHub repository in owner/name format with the lodash/lodash example. The description merely repeats this format and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns maintenance signals for a GitHub repository, enumerating exact data points such as stars, forks, open issues, license, flags, dates, and topics. It also differentiates itself from supply_chain_check by scope, making it clear this is the GitHub-only variant.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to judge whether a dependency looks maintained or abandoned. It names the alternative supply_chain_check for npm/PyPI packages with unknown repos, and clarifies the GitHub-only constraint and the found:false result for missing/private repos. This gives agents clear routing guidance.

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