Advisories for a package version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so by stating the version default ('latest if omitted') and enumerating the response contents, including advisory metadata and the count affecting the latest version. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single sentence that packs in the action, scope, default behavior, and output contents without filler. Every clause earns its place and the most important scoping detail appears early.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are already structured, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the key usage nuance (version defaults to latest) and the advisory fields returned. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly distinguish when this tool should be preferred over check_manifest or check_packages, but the overall definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description carries some burden for parameter meaning. It adds genuinely useful semantics for the version parameter ('latest if omitted') and describes output fields, but it does not clarify the meaning of name or ecosystem beyond what the schema's enum and property name already imply. This is partial compensation rather than full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('known security advisories') and scopes it to one package version, defaulting to latest when omitted. It also enumerates the returned fields, making its purpose distinct from the sibling tools, which appear to target manifest or package checks.

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 clearly conveys when the tool applies: when a caller needs security advisories for a specific package version, with latest as the default. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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