check_package

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly signals a read-only advisory lookup and adds that the tool also returns the latest release and version lag, which is useful extra context, but it says nothing about network dependency, rate limits, caching, or what happens for an unknown/unpublished package version.

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?

Four short lines, each earning its place: purpose and scope first, then the ecosystem vocabulary, then the bonus output, then a worked example. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and it wisely only flags the notable extra fields. The remaining gap is failure behavior (invalid ecosystem, nonexistent version) for a three-required-parameter tool with no annotation coverage.

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 0% and the schema declares only bare property titles, so the description is doing real work: it enumerates the accepted ecosystem values (PyPI, npm, crates.io, Go) where the schema has no enum, and the example fixes the positional/argument order name→version. Only 'version' format (exact vs range) is left slightly ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check one exact package version for known vulnerabilities') and adds the scoping qualifier 'without a lockfile', which separates it in spirit from scan_project and list_outdated. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Without a lockfile' and 'one exact package version' imply the usage context (an ad-hoc single-package lookup rather than a project scan), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent must infer that scan_project or list_outdated cover the project-level cases.

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