Find a library (with security verdict)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it resolves a human name to a registry id, selects the newest version without known advisories labeled "safe," and returns a verdict. It does not say what happens when a name is ambiguous or unknown, or whether the advisory check is live, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with purpose and resolution examples, then the skip condition with alternatives. Parenthetical examples are load-bearing rather than filler; nothing could be cut without losing routing information.

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 three-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (ids, safe version, verdict) and when to bypass the tool. Missing is failure behavior for unresolvable or ambiguous names, which an agent would want before calling.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by showing how libraryName is normalized into a registry-qualified id and by implying the ecosystem is inferred when omitted. It stops short of explaining how query influences resolution beyond the schema's own note about language guessing.

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 ("finds the registry package for a library name") and immediately concretizes it with mappings like "next.js" -> npm:next and "pytorch" -> pypi:torch. It also names what it produces (ids for get-docs, newest advisory-free version, verdict), so it is clearly distinguishable from get-docs and check-packages.

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 an explicit exclusion rule: "Skip it when you know the registry name," and explains that get-docs accepts "npm:next" directly while check-packages takes plain names. Both the when and the when-not are stated with the alternative tools named.

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