package_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses decision outcomes, detection categories such as slopsquatting and typosquatting, data sources, cost, p99 latency, npm range resolution, and supported input forms.

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 and dense with relevant information for a security-checking tool. It is long but mostly earns its length through concrete capabilities, though it could be slightly easier to scan with tighter grouping.

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 complex three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains inputs, decisions, reasons, and sources. It does not fully specify the exact response structure beyond per-package decisions with reasons, leaving a small gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful semantics beyond the schema, especially that npm version ranges are resolved like npm does and that packages may be passed as strings, objects, or a manifest.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: checking package dependencies before installation. It clearly scopes the tool to up to 20 packages across multiple ecosystems and to ALLOW/CAUTION/BLOCK decisions, making its role distinct from general vulnerability or domain-check siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: before a coding agent installs dependencies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer cve_lookup for deeper vulnerability research, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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