Named Package Comparison

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. The description adds important behaviors: missing packages return found=false, field availability varies by registry, and 5-minute caching. 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?

Four efficient sentences with no redundancy. Purpose first, then guidance, limitations, and caching. Every sentence earns its place, achieving clarity without verbosity.

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 presence of output schema, description covers all needed context: purpose, usage boundaries, behavioral traits, and caching. No gaps for its complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal new meaning (e.g., caching), but the schema already explains array constraints and enum options. 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?

The description clearly states it compares exact package names using live npm/PyPI metadata, with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools that might discover or assess market, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (known candidates, evidence for claims) and when not to use (discovery, market size, cross-registry). Provides clear alternatives implicitly, guiding proper invocation.

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