lookup_go_module

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: input constraints, return signals, and ecosystem nuances (no download counter, GitHub-primary). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with separate paragraphs for output, ecosystem notes, and usage; not overly verbose. A bit lengthy but justified by the need to explain Go ecosystem specifics.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description enumerates all returned signals and addresses potential ambiguities (e.g., publisher vs contributor). The single parameter is fully documented.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter, and the description adds value with examples, case-sensitivity mention, and context about module paths. Exceeds baseline.

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 it obtains a 'behavioral commitment profile' for a Go module, listing specific signals (age, versions, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools which target different ecosystems or actions.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are given ('vetting Go dependencies, abandonware identification, supply chain risk') with concrete examples. Lacks exclusion criteria but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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