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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses genuine behavior: every issue is verified to actually name that version, the response includes bug, evidence, and best workaround, and the thread text is untrusted third-party content. The prompt-injection warning is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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?

Three dense sentences: what it does, when to use it, what comes back. Front-loaded purpose, zero filler, and the untrusted-content caveat is placed where it will be read.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (bug, evidence, workaround) and the safety caveat on that content. Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 version-spec formats, query filter, and ecosystem default are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work but earns no credit above baseline.

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 (look up) and resource (open GitHub issues against exact npm/PyPI package versions) with scope qualifiers. The phrase 'with no lockfile or scan needed' implicitly separates it from the sibling landmine_check, which presumably scans a lockfile.

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 concrete triggers: 'before adding or upgrading a dependency, or when a dependency misbehaves.' It never explicitly names landmine_check as the alternative or states when not to use this tool, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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