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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination limits, default result counts, or special search syntax. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description still fails to add any new behavioral information.

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 a single four-word sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though extremely brief.

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 search tool with six parameters and no required fields, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaningful explanation of the six parameters. The term 'faceted' hints at facet_field, but there is no explanation of 'q', 'fq', 'rows', 'start', 'sort', or 'facet_field'. The examples in the schema offer some hints, but the description itself does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Full-text + faceted search' clearly indicates a search tool with specific capabilities. The name 'package_search' supplies the resource, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from listing (package_list) and showing (package_show) tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_within.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as package_list, package_show, or search_within. The description merely states what the tool does without any contextual, prerequisite, or exclusionary information.

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