crates_get

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The only added behavioral context is the external source ('crates.io'), which implies network dependency; nothing is said about the failure mode for unknown crate names or what fields come back.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and source front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which costs it nothing on this dimension.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what 'detailed info' means — version, description, downloads, repository, dependencies — and it doesn't. For a simple read tool this is survivable but leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents `name` completely. The description's 'by name' merely restates it without adding format rules (case sensitivity, exact-match vs fuzzy, hyphens/underscores), 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?

A specific verb ('Get detailed info'), a specific resource ('a Rust crate'), and a source ('from crates.io') — an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't name a sibling, but the contrast with crates_search (lookup-by-name vs discovery) is implicit enough to be usable.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus crates_search, and no prerequisite that the exact crate name must already be known. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'by name', leaving the agent to guess whether this tool can be used for discovery.

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