package_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what health data is checked and that GitHub enrichment is optional, but it does not describe read-only semantics, rate limits, error handling, or the exact return shape. For a read-oriented check tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The purpose and covered metrics are front-loaded, followed by a concise registry-prefix example, so every part earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key returned signals and the registry-prefix input format. It omits details about multiple-package handling and error behavior, though `packages` is covered by the schema. Overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the registry-prefix format and optional GitHub enrichment, but it adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: checking health of npm, PyPI, or Crates.io packages, and enumerates the health signals it covers. The sibling tools focus on email, web, tech stack, or companies, so this is clearly distinguishable. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 usage by defining the tool as a package health check and provides a registry-prefix example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no sibling package-checking tools, so the implied usage is sufficient but not strong guidance.

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