Package Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the specific signals aggregated, the upstream data source (deps.dev), and that the result is an actionable summary. It stops short of noting latency/cost of a multi-source composite call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the checklist of signals. The closing 'Returns a summary an agent can act on' is slightly filler and contributes little given an output schema exists.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, signals checked, source, and supported ecosystems. Only minor operational details (composite-call latency, no auth/rate-limit notes) are absent, which is low-stakes for a read-only public lookup.

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 100% with only two parameters, and the schema already documents both the exact-name convention and the ecosystem enum. The description's ecosystem list ('npm, pypi, cargo') merely repeats the enum, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (package) and verb-like scope (composite trust/health check), then enumerates exactly what is checked: recency, deprecation, license, maintainers, dependency count, advisories. The 'composite' framing and the six-signal list distinguish it from the single-facet siblings such as package_dependencies and package_info.

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?

'A composite trust/health check for a package an agent is considering' gives a clear context for use (pre-adoption vetting). It does not, however, name any sibling alternative or state when a narrower tool like package_info or package_dependencies should be preferred instead.

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