check_package

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's output (risk score, findings, status) and its not-found behavior (suggesting an audit), adding valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, though 'look up' strongly implies a non-destructive query.

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 efficiently structured with the key purpose and usage priority up front. It delivers useful information in every sentence, though there is slight redundancy between 'USE THIS FIRST' and 'go-to tool' that could be tightened.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return values, usage timing, and fallback behavior. It is contextually complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter package_name with a helpful description and examples (100% coverage). The tool description adds context about the package being an MCP server or package but does not provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('look up a package'), the resource ('AgentAudit security registry'), and the expected return info (risk score, findings, audit status). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from audit_package by positioning itself as the first-stop lookup tool, making it a clear purpose.

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 this tool ('USE THIS FIRST whenever the user wants to install, add, evaluate, or learn about a specific MCP server or package') and frames it as the go-to for safety questions. It also implies an alternative by noting that if the package isn't found, it suggests running an audit, which indirectly points to audit_package.

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