search_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that all these operations are read-only, whether there are registry rate limits or auth requirements, how errors/unknown packages surface, or what the 'raw' response looks like; 'raw' hints at unprocessed payloads but is never explained.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the sibling routing, then an example. Slight redundancy between the title-like first clause and the example, but no filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters and a 21-value `action` enum spanning versions, readme, advisories, deps.dev hashes and reverse dependencies, the description says nothing about output shape or how the action families differ in what they return. The pkg routing helps, but an agent must open the schema to understand the action surface.

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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented, and the description's example (name='express', registry='npm') mainly restates the schema. It adds a routing note in the schema for full metadata ('use pkg'), but contributes no new meaning about `action` groupings, `version='latest'` resolution, or how `registry='auto'` resolves.

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 the resource and scope precisely: 'Raw package registry queries (npm/PyPI/crates + deps.dev)', which tells an agent exactly what data source it hits. It distinguishes itself from the `pkg` sibling, but the verb is generic ('queries') and the tool name implies search while the description covers a broad action surface (versions, readme, advisories, reverse deps), so the exact operation set is only clear from the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the selection condition — 'Use for fast single-source lookups' — and names the alternative with the condition that selects it: 'For composite intelligence (Libraries.io + Sonatype vulns), use `pkg` instead.' It even supplies a concrete invocation example, leaving nothing to inference.

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