Check Package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool queries an external service (OSV.dev) and explains why the ecosystem parameter is needed. However, it does not disclose response format, network/error behavior, or exact version-matching semantics.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the ecosystem requirement is stated directly as a necessary condition.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: the external source, the target package+version, and the disambiguation requirement. It does not cover response structure or error cases, but those are less critical for this straightforward query tool.

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?

Only ecosystem has a schema description, so coverage is 33%. The description adds context that package_name and package_version identify a specific package+version and explains why ecosystem matters for disambiguation. It does not specify version format or exact-match requirements, leaving partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query OSV.dev for known vulnerabilities in a specific package + version.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools by focusing on a single package/version lookup.

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 communicates the key prerequisite: the ecosystem must be provided to disambiguate packages with the same name. It implies use for single-package vulnerability checks, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over scan_dependencies or scan_dependency_file.

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