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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'curated' qualifier, implying a non-exhaustive, hand-selected set of tools, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose result limits, query matching behavior, or other operational traits.

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 one short sentence (six words) that front-loads the action and resource. It is highly concise with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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, the description is minimal but does not convey critical operational details: how matches are made, what result shape to expect, or any pagination/count limits. The annotations cover safety, but the functional context is incomplete for effective invocation.

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?

The input schema has a single 'query' string parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain how the query is interpreted (e.g., name search, keyword matching, tags) or any expected format. The agent is left to guess what to pass as the query.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'curated Linux command-line tools,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_packages (which searches packages) and get_tool (which retrieves a specific tool). The scope is well-defined.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the single-sentence description.

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