depsdev_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely extra behavioral fact — that no latest-version guessing occurs and only a provider-marked default is used — which is real resolution semantics not in the annotations. It stops there: no mention of network dependency, error behavior when a default is absent, or supported ecosystems.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. It is terse rather than bloated; the only cost is that brevity here shades into under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. But for a tool keyed on package name plus ecosystem, the description says nothing about the ecosystem parameter or its npm default, and gives no signal about what happens when no provider-marked default exists — the exact failure mode its own caveat implies.

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 0% for both parameters: the description never mentions `name` or `system`, nor that `system` defaults to npm, nor which ecosystems are valid. With zero coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not — the only hint is the generic phrase "version metadata."

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?

"Get deps.dev version metadata" names a verb and a resource, but "version metadata" is vague — it doesn't say whether this returns package info, resolved versions, or dependency data. The second sentence clarifies the resolution policy rather than the purpose. Siblings (osv_*, nvd_cve, kev_check, epss) are vulnerability tools, so the resource is distinguishable, but the description never states that distinction itself.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given — nothing tells the agent why it would pick deps.dev metadata over the OSV/NVD/KEV siblings. The note about only accepting a provider-marked default hints at a resolution use case, but that is an implicit inference rather than stated guidance.

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