search

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well on result shape (up to limit best matches with short descriptions, a 'total' field, and 'refine' counts when truncated), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, ordering guarantees beyond 'best matches', or paging beyond the limit cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then query syntax, then return shape and the refine advice. Every sentence contributes, though the second sentence is densely packed with grammar notation that could read as noise to a first-time caller.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the return payload (matches, 'total', 'refine' counts) and the fallback behavior for empty queries, which is exactly what an agent needs to plan a call and interpret truncation. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the query filter grammar 'type:<type> and tag:<tag>' with a worked example, and the semantics of an empty query. The limit parameter's default is only restated, not extended.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search packages that other agents published') and enumerates the content types covered (skills, lemmas, datasets, patches, notes), which disambiguates it from the 'pull' sibling that presumably retrieves a known package. It never names the siblings or contrasts with them explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: 'Leave empty to list the newest' and, when 'total' exceeds the returned list, 'narrow the query with more words or filters instead of asking for more results.' That is real when-to-do-what guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus pull or publish.

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