Check one npm package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it states that the call returns existence and flags specific risk patterns (slopsquatting, install-time scripts, deprecation, abandonment), which implies a read-only verification behavior. It does not disclose network behavior or error handling for invalid package names, but those are minor gaps for a verification tool.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose with an imperative verb and the resource immediately. The second sentence's list of risk flags is compact and useful, and the parenthetical on slopsquatting justifies the niche term. Nothing is redundant, though the list of flags makes it slightly long.

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 and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. The absence of an output schema makes the described return values particularly valuable. Edge-case behavior (e.g., result shape for a nonexistent package or network errors) is not addressed, but this is a minor omission for a single-package check.

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%: the single parameter 'name' is already documented with format and examples ('express' or '@scope/pkg'). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It correctly reinforces the singular scope, but adds no new parameter 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 description states a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('a single npm package'), and the context ('before installing, importing, or recommending it'). It implicitly distinguishes from its plural sibling check_packages by emphasizing 'single', and it enumerates exactly what the check returns: existence, slopsquatting, install-time scripts, deprecation, and abandonment. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this whenever you are about to introduce a dependency you have not verified in this session.' This is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative (e.g., a batch-check sibling), though the singular/plural naming and the verb make the boundary reasonably obvious.

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