npmScore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that the score is from NPMS.io and based on three metrics, which is consistent. Does not contradict annotations, but adds only minor behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One succinct sentence that includes all essential information. No unnecessary words, and the key verb, resource, and metrics are front-loaded.

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 low complexity (two parameters, one required), presence of output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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% for parameters. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply mentions the output type. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters clearly.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'consolidated package score', and the dimensions it covers (quality, maintenance, popularity). It distinguishes from siblings like npmQuality and npmMaintenance by indicating this is a composite score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npmQuality or npmMaintenance. The description implies it is for an overall score, but does not provide when-not scenarios or mention siblings.

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