packageSearchHelp

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds context about its purpose (pre-creation check) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns suggestions or how it handles inexact matches, which would be beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 concise, a single sentence with no superfluous words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and usage context without redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and annotations cover its read-only nature. The description gives the key use case (pre-creation check). However, it does not describe the output or behavior in detail, but given the lack of an output schema and simplicity, the description is adequate for basic usage, though it could mention whether suggestions are returned or how the 'type' parameter influences results.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('name' and 'type'), providing clear semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but it does clarify the overall use case. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool searches help for package names and serves as a name check before creation. It specifies the resource (package names) and the action (search/help), which distinguishes it from many siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar search tools like searchInPackage or searchObject.

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 usage as a pre-creation validation ('a name check before a creation that would fail on the package'), providing context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for broader searches, leaving some ambiguity.

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