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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the evidence rule (counts only rows recorded against the exact digest, 'not_checked' means none exist), the scope disclaimer that a result is not a safety/security/returns claim, and the guarantee that no signed download URL is ever returned. These are real operational constraints an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded: USE WHEN, NOT FOR, RETURNS, RULE ENFORCED, Example. Every section contributes distinct, non-redundant information, and the routing condition is placed ahead of the detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden and does so by enumerating the returned listing fields (slug, version.digest, evidence_freshness, fork_permitted, acquisition_modes, superseded_by, etc.) and explaining superseded_by semantics. Combined with the enforced-evidence rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 83%, so the schema already documents query, cursor, recipe, and license. The description adds only a small example invocation ({ query: 'treasury', limit: 10 }) and restates the cursor/next_cursor linkage already present in the schema; it does not clarify the recipe/license filter semantics further. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches Sato Hub's published agent packages, each described as a public view of one sealed, immutable version. It explicitly distinguishes itself from onchain_agent_search_resources, onchain_agent_search_agents, and onchain_agent_create_agent, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Opens with an explicit USE WHEN clause (ready-made package to download or fork rather than assemble) and a NOT FOR clause naming three alternatives with the conditions that select them (frameworks/MCP servers, hiring/running agents, generating a fresh repo). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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