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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the result (which packages, workflows and guides provide the capability), but says nothing about ranking, result limits, or partial-match behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the output type, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, the domain, and what the results point to. It could be stronger by clarifying that results are cross-referenced resources rather than capability objects themselves, but nothing critical 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Search keywords', maxLength 200), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no query syntax guidance — whether it is keyword-based, whether multiple terms are ANDed, or how to phrase a capability query — so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus a well-scoped resource (Offline Protocol capabilities) with concrete examples (peer discovery, encrypted groups). It also states what the result maps to — packages, workflows and guides — which sets it apart from the sibling search_packages/search_workflows/search_skills tools. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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: reach for this when you want to find what implements a capability rather than looking up a known package or workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many sibling search_* and get_* tools.

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