Gate a whole dependency list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior by stating that results are sorted worst-first, ensuring hallucinated or dangerous packages surface at the top. It does not describe the response format or side effects, but 'verify' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then practical use cases, then the key behavioral nuance about sorting. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: when to use it, what it accepts, and what results look like. It could be more complete by naming check_package as the single-package alternative or describing the result payload, but these are minor gaps.

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 the schema already documents the 'names' parameter well. The description reinforces the batch aspect and ties it to dependency-list checks, but it does not add substantially new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('many npm packages at once'), which immediately conveys the tool's batch nature. This distinguishes it from the sibling check_package, which presumably handles a single package.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: before writing a package.json, running an install command, or handing a dependency list to a user. It does not explicitly mention the alternative for single-package checks, but the batch-focused phrasing provides clear contextual guidance.

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