npmScore

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the source (NPMS.io in title) and the consolidated nature of the score, which isn't in annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or exact return format.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by hinting at the output structure, but annotations cover key behavioral aspects.

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%, with the parameter 'packages' clearly documented as a list of package names. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'consolidated package score' with specific metrics (quality, maintenance, popularity). It distinguishes from siblings like npmQuality (single metric) or npmVulnerabilities (security focus) by emphasizing consolidation, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 description implies usage for consolidated scoring vs. single-metric tools like npmQuality or npmMaintenance, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like npmCompare or provide exclusions. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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