What DepTime indexes

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context not in the structured fields: coverage is a hard boundary, and queries about unindexed packages will not be answerable. It does not describe output shape, but an output schema exists.

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 short sentences, no filler: the first states what is returned, the second states the consequence. Front-loaded and 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the meaning of a gap in coverage. Only a brief hint about calling it as a first step before other queries would make it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full inventory rather than a scoped query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Lists indexed packages and version ranges.' The title reinforces it as a coverage/inventory lookup, which is clearly distinct from siblings like diff_versions or symbol_history. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 line 'If a package is missing, DepTime cannot answer about it' implies you should consult this before expecting answers on a package, which is useful framing. However, it never states when to call this versus the sibling tools or that it takes no arguments, leaving the trigger to inference.

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