Check a tool's trust label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does most of it: it names the data sources (deps.dev stars/license/Scorecard, GitHub last change/archived, OSV for npm), defines the three label outcomes, and warns that green is not a safety guarantee while instructing the agent to relay that caveat. It omits network cost, rate limits, and failure behavior when a URL is unrecognized, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action and timing, then sources, then return values, then the safety caveat. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information with no repetition or filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (label plus reasons) and the meaning of each label, plus a policy caveat about green. For a two-optional-parameter read-only check, nothing an agent needs to call or report correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining that the npm path unlocks additional signals (deprecation and known vulnerabilities via OSV) that the URL path alone does not provide. That functional distinction between the two optional parameters is not in 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 object ('check one candidate before recommending or installing it') and immediately defines what is returned: a green/orange/red trust label with reasons. The scope (single candidate repository or npm package) is unambiguous and cannot be confused with read_readme or search_repositories.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance ('before recommending or installing it') and implies one-candidate-per-call, but never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it (e.g., for packages not on npm/GitHub). Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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