Check packages before installing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the 100-package limit, the specific checks performed, the verdict categories, and the version-omission behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then lists verdicts, and ends with a concise parameter tip. Every sentence 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?

Given the annotations, output schema, and the description's coverage of limits, verdicts, and version behavior, the tool is sufficiently specified for an agent to invoke correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but this does not block correct usage.

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 only 50%, with only ecosystem described as 'Registry.' The description compensates by clarifying that packages are checked for existence, latest version, deprecation, advisories, licence, and age, and by explaining that omitting version checks the latest. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific action ('Checks up to 100 packages in one registry') and enumerates the checks performed and verdicts returned. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like check_manifest or get_advisories.

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 title 'Check packages before installing' implies when the tool should be used, and the description adds operational guidance like 'Omit version for the latest.' However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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