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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full weight. It reveals the search scope ('any library') and accepts arbitrary text, but doesn't disclose likely read-only behavior, result shape, or how limit/packages affect results. There's no contradiction, but the behavioral profile is under-specified.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then input guidance. No redundant phrasing; every word contributes.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this description leaves many questions open (e.g., what does limit do? how are packages combined? what does a result look like?). The free-text guidance helps but does not provide enough context for a new agent to use all parameters effectively.

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 covers only query and error_type (40%). The description elaborates on the query concept with more example categories. But sig, limit, and packages lack any description or complementary explanation, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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?

Description states 'Search for verified method contracts for any library' – a specific verb and resource. It also describes input flexibility (any text), which helps distinguish from list-oriented siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it's not a 5.

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?

Advises using free-form text and gives examples (library name, method, what you're building, error). This implies broad search usage, but doesn't contrast with list_methods or list_services or indicate when to use structured enumeration instead. No exclusions.

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