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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds scope ('every allowed pack') and, importantly, the shape of the result — matching names with pack, listed status, and whether they mutate data. No output schema exists, so this return-value disclosure earns real credit.

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, zero filler, with the search intent and examples front-loaded. The final sentence is over-compressed — 'or enable_packs to list its pack' reads ambiguously about whose pack and in what order — costing a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (names, pack, listed flag, mutating flag). Remaining gap is the unmentioned limit/cap behavior, which matters for a discovery tool where matches can exceed 40.

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 50%: query is documented in-schema and reinforced by the plain-language examples, which is genuinely additive. However, limit (1–40, default 12) is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no mention of what happens when more than `limit` tools match.

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 (Search) and resource (every allowed pack, for tools) plus the matching dimension ('by what you want to do'), with three concrete query examples. This is clearly distinguishable from the ~150 domain siblings, which all act on catalog data rather than discovering tools.

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?

Names the downstream alternatives explicitly — call_tool for read-only matches, call_write_tool for writes, enable_packs to list a pack. The routing is stated but compressed and lacks a stated when-not (e.g. if you already know the tool name, skip this).

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