pypi_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: only the fixed https://pypi.org API is contacted, arbitrary URLs are rejected, and uploader prose is omitted (so the agent should not expect a summary field). It stops short of stating rate limits or auth requirements, but the security/scope posture is well covered.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its outputs before the usage hint and constraints. Nothing is redundant, though the 'request latency' return detail is slightly peripheral to the tool's purpose.

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 spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with the security constraints and usage framing, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only parameter format guidance 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 0% and the single 'project' string parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying a PyPI project identifier and explicitly stating that URLs are rejected, which steers the agent away from passing a URL, but it never states the expected name format or normalization.

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 ('Look up one PyPI project') and immediately enumerates the core return fields (current version, Python requirement, request latency). The scope word 'one' distinguishes it from any bulk lookup, and the sibling word_stats is clearly unrelated.

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 a concrete usage context: 'Use before checking a Python dependency's compatibility.' There are no real alternatives to weigh (the only sibling is word_stats), so the absence of explicit exclusions costs little, but there is no guidance on failure/no-match handling.

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