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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check deprecation status' implies a read-only operation but discloses no behavioral traits such as network usage, caching behavior, or output format. It stops short of even a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 one-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, but it's under-specified. It sacrifices necessary context for brevity, making it more of a terse summary than a properly calibrated description.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what 'deprecation status' returns (e.g., boolean, message, deprecation date), but it doesn't. The tool is simple, yet this minimalism leaves critical ambiguity.

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% (both 'packages' and 'ignoreCache' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already documents the essentials.

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 'Check deprecation status' clearly identifies a verb and resource, and the specific focus on 'deprecation' distinguishes it from sibling tools like npmLatest or npmVersions. It's concise but lacks detail on what exactly is checked or returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no context hints, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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