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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to disclose operation-specific behavior, which it does well: a hard cap of ten candidates, parity with native HTML/HTTP search, the unknown-vs-false semantics, and explicit non-goals (no complete profile, publisher fetch, bulk export, or functionality guarantee).

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the core capability (find software) is front-loaded, followed by return shape and then boundaries. Slightly dense but every clause carries 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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough for correct invocation: result cap, parity with HTTP search, unknown semantics, and explicit scope limits. The lack of explicit sibling routing is the main remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including limits, page depth cap, license/pricing disclaimers, and the require syntax. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the unknown-is-not-false semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find software') and enumerates the search axes: by name, task, or recorded filters. This distinguishes it from siblings that list identifiers or look up projects, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the search axes and the closing exclusion list (no complete profile, publisher fetch, or bulk export), but there are no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-alternative-VS-sibling statements. Siblings like list_identifier_platforms are never referenced as alternatives.

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