find_similar_packages

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

No annotations are present, so the description must explain behavior. It describes the return value as a ranked list with scores, descriptions, and download stats, and clarifies the basis as keywords/functionality. This is useful but lacks caveats about ranking methodology or potential gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then output. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes results.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline 3. The description doesn't add much beyond schema, though it implies ranking behavior via 'ranked list' which is relevant to limit.

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 clearly states the tool finds alternative or similar packages based on keywords and functionality, with concrete examples of user queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_packages by focusing on similarity rather than general search.

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?

Provides explicit usage context with paraphrases like 'what else is like X?' and 'alternatives to Y?', making when-to-use clear. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is strong.

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