search_mods_cf

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: results come from the user's own CurseForge API key via Prism's FlameKeyOverride setting, which tells an agent auth configuration matters. It says nothing about rate limits, pagination behavior, or failure modes when the key is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no filler. Every clause earns its place, including the auth parenthetical.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on a four-parameter tool, the description leaves an agent guessing about parameter meaning, result shape, and paging. The API-key note is helpful but does not close that gap.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: query, loader, pageSize, and gameVersion are never explained. At best the phrase "Minecraft mods" loosely implies what loader and gameVersion refer to, which is far short of what a 0%-coverage schema needs.

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 CurseForge for Minecraft mods"), and the "_cf" / CurseForge naming implicitly separates it from the sibling search_mods. It does not explicitly name search_mods as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 mention of CurseForge implies the source-specific use case, and the API-key parenthetical hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_mods or what happens if no key is configured. Usage is only implied.

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