search_mods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and largely fails. The one behavioral claim — matching against the instance when mcVersion/loader are omitted — is phrased so ambiguously ("only if provided explicitly") that it reads as self-contradictory and cannot be reliably acted on, and nothing covers result limits or read-only nature.

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?

It is short at two sentences, so size is fine, but the second sentence is not front-loaded or parseable — its wording forces re-reading rather than adding a clean constraint. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than through efficiency.

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?

A search tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain query behavior, the type enum, and limit semantics. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call beyond the required query string.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at mcVersion and loader. query, type (the sole enum field), and limit are never mentioned, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

"Search Modrinth" names a verb and a platform, which does implicitly route the agent away from the CurseForge sibling search_mods_cf, but the resource (mods) is only conveyed by the tool name, not the description. The second sentence is so garbled it doesn't reinforce what the tool returns or searches.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that search_mods_cf is the CurseForge counterpart purely from the '_cf' suffix, and the description never states that condition.

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