check_bulk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is DB-only, <100ms for 100 items, and returns a specific status enum. This enriches the behavioral model without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured with USE WHEN, NOT, and RETURNS sections. Every clause adds value; it is not padded with filler or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and performance characteristics. It also disambiguates from a closer sibling, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 'items' as (ecosystem, package) pairs and referencing a 100-item batch. It adds semantic meaning to the single parameter without repeating the schema's structural details.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Fast pre-flight filter for a batch of (ecosystem, package) pairs.' It clearly states what it does and what it catches (hallucinated names, stdlib, typos, known-bad), and distinguishes itself from scan_project by explicitly saying it is not a dep-tree audit.

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?

It provides an explicit 'USE WHEN' scenario (about to emit npm/pip install) and a 'NOT' exclusion with an alternative tool (scan_project for dep-tree audit). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings.

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