nexus_search_mods

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals useful behavioral detail: the call is backed by v2 GraphQL and does not consume the v1 REST rate-limit quota. It also documents the returned JSON shape, pagination semantics ('offset += _returned'), and the notable exclusion of full BBCode descriptions, which is actionable context an agent needs.

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 core purpose, then adds a compact technical note, a clear return-shape block, and a routing note for full details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of schema contents.

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 9-parameter, all-optional search tool, the description is complete: it explains the API backend and rate-limit behavior, gives the return shape and pagination strategy, and points to the correct sibling for missing data. The rich input schema and annotations cover the remaining operational details.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including defaults, enums, constraints, and special notes like the server page-size cap. The description adds only high-level context ('free text + filters') without duplicating parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate for the high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search Nexus Mods with free text + filters, sorted and paginated.' It also clarifies this is the only way to search mods by name because the v1 REST API has no free-text search, distinguishing it from other search-family siblings like nexus_search_collections or nexus_search_users.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: it is the only way to search by name since the v1 REST API lacks free-text search. It also directs users to nexus_get_mod_v2 when full mod descriptions are needed. However, it does not spell out exclusions for related search tools such as collections, users, or comments.

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