Search installed plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the ranking order (exact name, prefix, token, then description match) and the reference implementation, which tells the agent how result ordering behaves.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first establishes what is searched and the ranking, the second states the required input combination. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 5-parameter, all-optional read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: matching and ranking behavior. It omits pagination/limit interaction and the shape of returned entries, but with no output schema and a default limit documented in the schema, those gaps are minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns one more point by clarifying that query and collection are combinable inputs ('or both') and by describing how the query string is matched and ranked, which the schema does not state.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find installed modules or plugins') and even anchors it to the underlying mechanic (ansible-doc -l), so the agent knows exactly what is searched and how results are ordered. It is clearly separable from the sibling ansible_module_doc, which retrieves details for a single module rather than searching the installed set.

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 invocation guidance ('Pass query, collection, or both') and notes that dir/type are optional-ish, but never states when to use this versus ansible_module_doc or ansible_collections. Usage is implied by the tool name and the search/rank semantics, with no explicit exclusions.

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