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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns only the 50 most recent versions and includes specific fields (dist-tags, deprecation status, total count). This goes beyond the annotations to set user expectations.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence concisely states the primary function, and the second provides context on usage. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, clear purpose, and presence of an output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what is returned, the 50-version limit, and typical use cases. It could mention pagination or sorting if applicable, but it is appropriate for this tool.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100% (parameter 'package' has a clear description). The tool description does not add additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 uses specific verbs ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('published versions of an npm package'). It details what is included (dist-tags, deprecation status, version count) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like npm.packages.info (which provides package metadata) by focusing on version listing.

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 explicitly states 'Useful for dependency auditing and upgrade planning,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, which would improve guidance.

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