npm package data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kind of data returned (structured fields), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, data freshness, or any behavior for invalid package names. For a simple retrieval tool, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 description is one concise parenthetical clarification appended to the title. It uses a clear noun phrase and lists key data fields without waste. Every word adds meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what data the caller will receive. It covers the important output aspects (fields). It does not discuss result format or error cases, but for this level of complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The single parameter package_name is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the load. The description does not add extra parameter syntax or examples, but none are needed. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: it returns structured npm package data, specifically listing latest version, README, dependencies, and weekly downloads. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the resource and scope are unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pypi_package by naming npm.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: it is for retrieving npm package data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., web_data_pypi_package) or any exclusions. The description does not state prerequisites or mention that the package must exist.

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