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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the 3,000-package cap, the OSV.dev backend, and the output shape (summary plus only problem packages, malicious flags first, vulnerabilities by severity with a minimum upgrade target).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it does, what to paste, what it checks against, what it returns, then when to use it. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant with structured fields.

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 must describe returns, and it does (summary plus problem packages, ordered by severity, with upgrade targets). Format support, limits, and routing are all covered, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value by enumerating the accepted file formats and the '== pins' constraint for requirements.txt, which the schema only gestures at with a short examples list.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) and resource (lockfile/dependency file) with explicit scope: whole-file including transitive dependencies. It enumerates the accepted file formats, which lets an agent recognize the resource without opening the schema.

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 explicit triggers (user pastes/attaches a lockfile, wants a full or transitive audit, asks 'is my project vulnerable?') and an explicit routing rule: prefer this over check_dependencies when the user has the file itself. Names the sibling and the condition that selects it.

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