npmSearch

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation), openWorldHint=true (can query external data), and idempotentHint=false (results may vary). The description adds minimal context beyond this—it mentions the optional limit but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. With annotations covering safety and scope, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details like pagination or error handling.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search for NPM packages') and efficiently notes the optional limit. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or error cases. With annotations handling safety and scope, the description meets basic needs but could better address result format or sibling tool differentiation for completeness.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'query' as the search term and 'limit' with default and bounds. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it restates 'optional limit' without explaining usage semantics. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for NPM packages' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('NPM packages'). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on general search rather than specific analyses (e.g., npmChangelogAnalysis, npmVulnerabilities), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from npmAlternatives or npmTrends which might also involve searching. The optional limit adds specificity but not full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., npmAlternatives, npmTrends, npmQuality), there's no indication of when this general search is preferred over more specialized tools. It mentions an optional limit but doesn't explain usage contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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