search_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return content (matching packages with risk scores and audit status), but it omits details like result ordering, pagination, or whether the search is fuzzy/exact. This is sufficient but not rich.

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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and result, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the return content, and when to use it. The only minor gap is not discussing result ordering or limit behavior, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 fully describes the single 'query' parameter with examples, so the description adds little new meaning about the parameter itself. It reinforces that the query targets packages but does not go beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('AgentAudit security registry for packages') and states what is returned (risk scores and audit status). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_package or check_package, which imply checking a known package rather than searching by name.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when you need to find a package but don't know the exact name.' It provides clear context but does not name specific alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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