package_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation that returns a report with specific fields. It does not mention side effects, errors, or external network calls, but for a simple query tool the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose and output fields in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the main output fields (weekly downloads, last publish date, deprecation/yank status, license, verdict). It does not detail error conditions or verdict criteria, but these are not essential for invoking the tool correctly in most cases.

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. The parameter descriptions in the schema already explain the 'name' examples and the 'registry' enum values and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the tool retrieves a health report for an npm or PyPI package, listing key metrics like weekly downloads, last publish date, deprecation status, license, and a verdict. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as compare_packages, bundle_size, deprecation_check, and vulnerability_check.

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 final sentence 'Use this before recommending or installing a package' gives explicit use context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it in favor of the more specific sibling tools, though the name and description imply overall health rather than a single aspect.

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