HALOWERK: Check a package list against known vulnerabilities and get, per package, the sev

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it queries OSV.dev, aggregates severity from multiple sources, reports a worst-case verdict, and includes pricing via x402. It also openly states that absence of findings does not prove safety—an important caveat not visible in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides thorough details. However, the pricing information is repeated twice (once in German, once again), making it slightly redundant. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool, but the repetition prevents a perfect score.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining return values: vulnerability identifiers, severity, summary, lowest fixing version, severity breakdown, and a worst-case verdict. It also covers the data source and limitations, giving the agent all necessary context for decision-making.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context by implying the 'packages' parameter can include versions, but it does not detail the exact format or relationships. This matches the baseline for high coverage without significant added semantics.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Check a package list against known vulnerabilities and get, per package, the severity breakdown and the lowest version that closes every finding.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear outputs, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like license_check or tls_chain.

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 provides strong context on when to use the tool by listing supported ecosystems (npm, PyPI, etc.) and stating limitations: 'a package with no finding is not proven safe' and 'an internal or vendored package is invisible here.' These are implicit usage guidelines, but no explicit alternatives are named, so it misses a 5.

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