Yumi PyPI Wheel Evidence

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real context by flagging that results are provider-reported (data provenance) and explicitly disclaiming verification. It does not describe error behavior, failure modes, or the shape of the response, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the scope caveat trailing. No filler; slightly compressed wording ("provider-reported" repeated concept) keeps it from a 5.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves two gaps an agent needs filled: the return shape (boolean? list of matched filenames? per-release mapping?) and how `tags`/`releases` are to be populated. The semantic contract of a read-only, non-verifying lookup is otherwise adequately conveyed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about either parameter. It never explains the tag triplet format (the schema's regex), that `releases` caps at 8 items, or what an entry in `releases` represents — an agent must infer everything from field names and constraints.

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+resource: "Reports provider-reported filename/tag intersection for PyPI wheels." The negative clause ("does not perform compatibility, security, or digest verification") further pins the scope so an agent cannot mistake this for a compatibility checker. It is jargon-heavy but precise, and there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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 tells the agent what the tool is NOT for (compatibility, security, digest verification), which is useful exclusion guidance, but never states the positive case — e.g., "use to check which wheel filenames match a set of platform tags for a release." Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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