check_typosquat

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the return value structure {is_typosquat, likely_target, confidence}, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 very concise: three short sentences that front-load the main purpose, usage guidelines, and return structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, and return format. The only gap is parameter guidance, which is partially addressed by the schema itself. Overall sufficient for a detection tool.

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 input schema has two parameters (ecosystem and package) with 0% schema description coverage from the description. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how to use them. For a tool with no parameter info in description, a low score is warranted.

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 'Typosquat detector' and provides specific examples of typosquatting patterns (e.g., 'lodsh', 'reqeusts'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_malicious or check_package by focusing solely on name similarity detection.

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 lists three use cases with specific conditions: name differs from a well-known package by 1-2 chars, copy-paste from unreliable source, and downloads near zero with familiar name. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for related checks.

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