search_libraries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions Libraries.io metadata and source rank, but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, result caps, or how the many action modes behave.

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 front-loaded with the data source and use cases, then gives a compact example. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 13-parameter, multi-action search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain action modes, return values, result limits, or most parameters, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently beyond simple name/platform searches.

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 only 15%, so the description must compensate for 13 mostly undocumented parameters. It gives one example using name and platform and vaguely implies the repo parameter, but omits sort, count, owner, query, version, keywords, licenses, languages, and the full meaning of the action enum.

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 identifies Libraries.io dependency metadata and source rank, and states concrete use cases: comparing dependency candidates and finding the repo behind a package. It distinguishes itself from search_package/pkg/vulns for registry versions and vulnerabilities, though it does not explicitly frame itself as a search verb or fully define scope.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance for selecting this tool when comparing dependency candidates or finding a package repo, and explicitly routes registry versions/vulns to search_package/pkg/vulns. It does not cover exclusions against every relevant sibling, but the main alternative is named.

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