security_fetch_package_risk_brief

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds rate limit (30/minute), data refresh behavior, no auth required, and lists return fields. No contradictions with 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 a single paragraph but well-structured, front-loading the key verdict and then detailing components, return fields, and rate limit. It is mostly concise but contains a contradictory statement about version requiredness.

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?

Output schema exists but not shown; however, description lists return fields. The tool is complex but the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters adequately. The minor contradiction prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description states version is 'Required.' while the schema shows it is optional (not in required array, default null). This contradiction reduces the score. No additional meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool provides a single verdict (SHIP/CAUTION/BLOCK) for any package by combining CVEs, license, maintainer health, and transitive count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities and security_fetch_licence_analysis by being a unified risk brief.

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?

Explicitly states the intended user (security engineers) and use case (pre-inclusion package review). Provides fallback guidance to call report_feedback if the tool does not serve the user's need, with specific parameters.

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