PyPI Package Versions

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: returns only 50 most recent versions, lists specific data fields. Annotations already indicate safe, read-only idempotent behavior, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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 succinct sentences: first conveys what the tool does and returns, second provides use cases. No extraneous information.

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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, return fields, limit, and use cases. It does not mention pagination for fetching more than 50 versions, which is a minor gap.

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 single parameter 'package' is fully described in the schema with examples. The tool description reiterates usage context but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all published versions of a Python package with specific fields (upload dates, yanked status, distribution file types) and mentions the limit of 50 most recent versions. It distinguishes from siblings like pypi.packages.info.

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 provides context for use cases (dependency auditing, version pinning, upgrade planning) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool. It is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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