get_package_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that verification can be 'deep archive' — which merely restates the verify_archive parameter — and says nothing about network cost, what is verified, or failure behavior for a tool that can reach out to repositories.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient information density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with four undocumented parameters, an enum that needs explanation, and two distinct retrieval modes left ambiguous, the definition is too thin for an agent to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of the four parameters: not the repository enum (cran/bioconductor/all), not the role of bioc_version, and not what toggling verify_archive actually changes. The single mention of archive verification only echoes the parameter name.

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 verb and resource ('Get metadata') and hints at two retrieval modes (index/DESCRIPTION lookup vs. deep archive verification). However, in a sibling set crowded with get_package_knowledge, check_package_version, search_packages and get_dependencies, 'metadata' is too broad to tell an agent what this returns that those do not.

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 pick this over get_package_knowledge, search_packages or check_package_version, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'index/DESCRIPTION lookup or deep archive verification' phrase gestures at two modes but never says when to choose each.

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