Registry Lookup

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns a JSON object with specific fields (risk_level, verified, tools, credential_env_vars, risk_justification) and indicates that a 'found=false' is returned if the server is not found. This goes beyond annotations.

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 four sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. It uses a docstring-style structure with Args/Returns sections. While not extremely terse, every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has a stated output schema (not shown but mentioned), comprehensive annotations, and only two parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the registry purpose, parameters with examples, return format, and a note about not found. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual requirement: 'At least one of server_name or package_name is required', which is not enforced in the schema (both have default null). It also provides example values, aiding correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool queries an 'agent-bom MCP server threat intelligence registry' to look up risk level, known tools, credential requirements, and verification status. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_trust or tool_risk_assessment, which likely focus on different aspects.

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 implies the tool should be used when needing security metadata about known MCP servers, and mentions that at least one of server_name or package_name is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the long list of siblings, so guidance is partial.

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