npm_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds qualifier examples (e.g., 'not:insecure', 'is:unstable') but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination behavior, or result structure. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes value. It includes practical examples without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., list of package names with metadata), nor does it suggest follow-up tools like npm_package for fetching details. The tool has 6 parameters and the description focuses on query behavior but omits integration guidance with the many sibling tools, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra qualifiers ('not:insecure', 'is:unstable') not explicitly listed in the schema's query property, enhancing semantic understanding beyond the structured fields. This justifies moving above the schema-coverage baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the npm registry for packages.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_package or npm_versions. It also provides concrete examples of qualifiers, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 clearly states its purpose as searching the registry, and the examples of qualifiers give practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_package for retrieving package details, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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