check_bulk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by stating it is 'DB-only, <100ms for 100 items' and listing possible return statuses, which are not in 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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT, RETURNS) with no redundant sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format per item with enumerated statuses. It also mentions performance and max items, making it complete for typical 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 0%, but the description explains that the tool processes a batch of (ecosystem, package) pairs and provides context for its use. Although it does not detail the schema fields, the enum for ecosystem is self-explanatory and the purpose is clear from the usage context.

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 is a 'fast pre-flight filter for a batch of (ecosystem, package) pairs,' specifying the verb (filter/check) and resource (batch of packages). It distinguishes itself from `scan_project` by noting 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?

The description explicitly says 'USE WHEN: about to emit npm install...' and 'NOT a dep-tree audit (use scan_project for that),' providing clear context for when to use and when to use an alternative.

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