check_typosquat

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral details about the detection criteria and the return format {is_typosquat, likely_target, confidence}, going beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction 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?

The description is very concise and well-structured with clear labels 'USE WHEN' and 'RETURNS'. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently conveys use cases and output without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool is simple with only 2 params and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and return format explicitly. However, it lacks parameter descriptions, which is a minor gap given the schema's 0% coverage. Still, the description is mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly define the 'ecosystem' or 'package' parameters; the examples (lodsh, reqeusts) imply the package name but leave ecosystem unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with 'Typosquat detector', which clearly states the tool's function. It also provides specific use-case scenarios (name differs by 1-2 chars, copy-paste from unreliable source) that help distinguish it from sibling tools like check_malicious or check_package.

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 'USE WHEN' conditions, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions but still provides strong contextual guidance.

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