Check package and repo names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the fallback: when a name is taken it returns the best free alternative, preferring a scoped @user/name for npm. That is real context beyond the annotations, though return shape and rate/error behavior are still unstated.

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 with no filler, front-loading the core purpose (check validity and availability) and then the fallback behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden, and it partially does so by explaining the taken-name fallback. With 100% schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only error/edge 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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (registry enum, repoName, packageName) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (check) and two concrete resources (package name validity/availability on the registry, and GitHub repo name availability). An agent can distinguish this from inspect_package (which inspects existing packages) and create_github_repo. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what happens on the 'taken' case but never says when to reach for this tool (e.g. before publish_package or create_github_repo) or what alternatives exist. Usage is only weakly inferable from the tool name and context, with no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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