search_package

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds useful context by revealing that both official repos and AUR are queried, but says nothing about result ordering, whether AUR results require an AUR helper, or what the response contains.

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 short sentence with zero waste, leading with the action and resource, with source scope appended. Nothing an agent must read past.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials. Only return-format and result-ordering details are unspecified, and with no output schema those are minor for a search 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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Package name or search term'. The description's 'by name' adds little beyond that, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for a package by name') and adds scope by naming the two sources searched: official repos and AUR. That implicitly separates it from siblings like list_installed_packages and check_updates, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (finding a package by name across repos and AUR), but gives no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as list_installed_packages for already-installed software.

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