maven_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the return shape (newest matching version, top 20 versions, project/javadoc links), a 1-day cache keyed by search-API URL, that failures are never cached, and that a missing version yields an error suggesting available versions. It does not state permission/auth requirements or rate limits, and never explicitly says the operation is non-mutating, so it falls short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return shape, error behavior and caching. The max_tokens disclaimer is a slight detour but earns its place by preventing an agent from supplying a parameter that does nothing; overall it is tight and waste-free.

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 read-only lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, what happens on a miss, and caching behavior. It is only short on group_id resolution rules, auth/prerequisite requirements and pagination or rate-limit limits, which are secondary for this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers two of four parameters: version lookup behavior (not-found error with suggestions) and the max_tokens no-op. The semantics of artifact_id (required) and the optional group_id - especially how the search resolves when group_id is omitted - receive no explanation, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 ('Look up an artifact on Maven Central') plus an explicit scope qualifier ('metadata only'). This clearly separates it from the java_docs, java_search and spring_* siblings, which fetch source/docs or Spring-specific content rather than Maven artifact metadata. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'metadata only' and the caching/error notes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools. It never says, for example, to prefer java_docs when full javadoc content is wanted (despite the max_tokens note hinting at that future capability). Context is inferable but not stated.

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