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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the query format (a key behavior) but does not mention any output behavior (e.g., returns artifact metadata, versions, or errors on not found). It omits details like rate limits or API quirks that could be relevant, but the description is not misleading.

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?

The description is extremely concise, a single sentence that gets the point across efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key information (tool purpose and query format), and there is no wasted content.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough to start calling it correctly. However, it lacks details on expected return shape (though output schema exists) and any error conditions. Given its relative simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 has 1 parameter 'q' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning to 'q' by explaining it takes 'group:artifact' or a name, which is a bonus. However, baseline is 3 due to low schema coverage, and the description does not fully explain 'q' semantics (e.g., is it an exact match or search?).

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 'Maven Central: Java artifact: 'group:artifact' or name' clearly states the tool queries Maven Central for Java artifacts, with a specific query format. It is distinct from siblings like pypi or npm by focusing on Java/Maven, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a conceivable 'maven' variant.

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?

It provides a hint on query format ('group:artifact' or name) but no guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor any context on use cases (e.g., dependency lookup, version discovery). No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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