check_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the return values: 'risk score, findings, and official audit status,' and explains behavior for missing packages (suggests running an audit). No contradictions.

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 core purpose. Every sentence earns its place—first states action, second adds usage guidance and fallback behavior. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, returns, and usage context. Missing information about authentication or rate limits is acceptable given the tool's nature.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the example values 'fastmcp', 'mongodb-mcp-server', but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. No additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Look up a package in the AgentAudit security registry.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to use this first for installations or safety queries.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS FIRST whenever the user wants to install, add, evaluate, or learn about a specific MCP server or package.' It also provides context for not-found cases. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or direct mention of alternative sibling tools like audit_package.

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