verify_coordinates

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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the tri-state outcome space, the important caveat that existence is NOT a safety guarantee (a published typosquat still reports exists and is unflagged), and the non-authoritative nature of suggestions. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results without over-trusting them.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and tri-state result, followed by two caveats that each earn their place. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes; it instead covers the interpretive gaps (tri-state meaning, typosquat blind spot, suggestion semantics) that an agent could otherwise misread. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying the suggestion output to the absent state and reinforcing that version is optional per item and only affects exact-version existence checks. It does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (verify Maven coordinates for existence) and immediately pins down the return semantics as tri-state (exists / absent / unknown). It also carves out a distinct niche versus siblings like check_version_exists and check_multiple_dependencies by declaring its hallucination/slopsquat-detection intent and did-you-mean suggestions.

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 intended context is clear: catching names an LLM may have invented, and treating suggestions as candidates to verify rather than endorsements. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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