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

The description adds behavioral notes beyond annotations (e.g., 'absence is not vendor non-support', dependencies between parameters). It does not contradict the 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?

Two concise sentences convey essential usage and constraints without fluff, achieving high clarity in minimal space.

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?

The description covers key usage scenarios but omits output format, error conditions, and non-obvious parameter interactions (e.g., offset, catalog_revision). Given the moderate complexity, it is adequate but not fully 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 has no parameter descriptions; the description clarifies only arch (requires distro/release) and view (requires release), leaving many parameters (offset, source, catalog_revision) unexplained. Given low coverage, more explanation is needed.

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 states the tool gets package metadata and evidence, and specifies a special mode (view=availability). It is specific enough to differentiate from search or history tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

Provides some usage guidance (e.g., view=availability for listing builds, absence semantics), but does not explicitly indicate when to prefer this over similar tools like search_packages or get_package_history.

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