Search the tool registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'local' and 'offline', which is useful confirmation that no network call occurs, but it discloses nothing about result caps, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that useful scoping information was trimmed away.

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 output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what a result looks like, what the kind filter does, and how limit behaves. It covers only the keyword-search concept, leaving a three-parameter search tool substantially underspecified.

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 three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails it. Only the 'query' parameter is implied by 'by keyword'; the 'kind' enum (mcp/plugin/skill/cli) and the 'limit' bounds (1-30) are left entirely undocumented.

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 gives a clear verb (search) and resource (local curated registry) plus the matching mechanism (keyword) and a mode qualifier (offline). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like recommend_tools and plan_install, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer on its own whether to reach for search_tools versus recommend_tools or explain_tool; the only hint is the implicit 'find things by keyword' framing.

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