Check package health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful substance by enumerating the signals examined (release recency, committers, response time, downloads, OpenSSF Scorecard, license), but it says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown package.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and output scale, followed by usage triggers. Nothing repeated and nothing wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return shape (a 0-100 score graded A-F) and the ecosystems covered. It omits failure behavior for a nonexistent or ambiguous package name, which is a minor but real gap for an openWorld lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that GitHub repos can be passed and that non-registry projects are supported; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (score) and resource (package/repo maintenance) with a concrete output scale (0-100, A-F), and names the three ecosystems it covers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with scan_manifest or compare_packages, but the single-package scope is evident.

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?

Gives three concrete triggering situations: before adding a dependency, judging abandonment, and vetting an unpublished GitHub project. It names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so the sibling routing is left implicit.

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