Supply-Chain-Check für ein Paket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the external data source (public OSV.dev) and that results include a short assessment, which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not state read-only semantics, network/auth requirements, or rate limits explicitly.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and data source front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is queried, against what, and roughly what is returned. Only the explicit read-only/network behavior is left implicit.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description restates ecosystem/name/optional version and the no-version behavior, which is already in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 names a specific verb ("Prüft") and resource ("einzelnes Paket") and identifies the data source (OSV.dev advisory database). The word "einzelnes" implicitly contrasts with the sibling check_sbom, though it never names it explicitly.

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 is implied by "einzelnes Paket" (single package vs. an SBOM), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_sbom or any prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing.

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