package_info

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

Describes output fields (version, downloads, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and this is a moderate gap.

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 with four sentences and three helpful examples, front-loading the purpose and key details without unnecessary information.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, output fields, and registry options adequately for a lookup tool. Missing details on error conditions or package not found, but overall complete given simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage; the description partly compensates through examples showing parameter usage. However, the 'reasoning' parameter is required but its purpose remains ambiguous despite examples.

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 it looks up package information from specific registries and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'package_search' by focusing on detailed info for a specific package rather than searching.

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?

Provides a usage scenario ('evaluate libraries before adding them to your project') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like 'package_search' for searching.

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