Verify an npm package was published

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe external read. The description adds the pre-claim verification intent, but says nothing about what a failed check looks like (error vs. negative result) or how the claim parameter influences the response — meaningful gaps for a verification gate with no output schema.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the usage rule second. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 four-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description never indicates the shape of the verdict the agent should expect or how to interpret a failure, which is exactly what an agent needs to act on the result. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the published_after proof-of-new-publish semantics. The description only echoes name and version, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: check the npm registry for a package and version. The npm-registry scope implicitly separates it from verify_github and verify_url, but no sibling is named explicitly to confirm that distinction.

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?

"Use before claiming a package or release was published" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to the other elliot_record_claim-style tools. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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