bouncer_check_package

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the output shape (ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK with evidence), the fact that it cross-references npm audit/OSV, and that it recommends a safe alternative version when blocked. It omits latency/rate-limit or data-source freshness caveats, but the behavioral disclosure is substantially richer than the annotations alone.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the imperative trigger before the mechanism and return values. Every clause contributes (trigger, comparison basis, verdicts, evidence, audit cross-check, fallback suggestion); the parenthetical signal list is long but information-bearing rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining returns — verdict categories, supporting evidence, audit results, and a suggested safe version. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and the read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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% — both `name` and `version` are documented in the schema, including format examples and the "latest" default. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how a range behaves vs. a dist-tag), so the 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?

The description names a specific action (compare a release against the package's own history) and enumerates the exact signals inspected — publisher, provenance, install scripts, new dependencies, code diff, name. It clearly positions itself as the broad entry-point check, which implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like bouncer_diff_release and bouncer_review_install_scripts, though it never names them.

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?

"Call this BEFORE `npm install <pkg>` or adding a dependency" gives an explicit, unambiguous trigger for when to invoke the tool. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling bouncer_check_upgrade or say when the granular tools (diff_release, review_install_scripts) are preferred over this aggregate check.

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