security_detect_typosquatting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing no authentication required, a rate limit of 60/minute, cold-start fetch behavior (≤30s), and output information (similar_packages with anomaly scores and verdict). This contextualizes the tool's behavior beyond the 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 (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality. It includes essential details (distance algorithm, output, rate limit, auth, cold-start, and fallback) without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity and the presence of a full input schema, annotations, and output schema (not shown but noted), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, algorithm, inputs, outputs, performance, rate limit, auth, and even a guidance for reporting issues. It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions and enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details but provides algorithmic context (distance metric and package reference set). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 precisely states the tool's purpose: detecting typosquatting attacks against a package name using Damerau-Levenshtein distance. It clearly specifies the resource (package name) and the method (comparison against top-10,000 packages), distinguishing it from other sibling tools.

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 indicates the target audience (security engineers auditing supply-chain packages) and provides a fallback instruction for reporting if the tool doesn't serve the need. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use this tool versus similar siblings.

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