package_search

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 mentions 'matching query terms,' implying a search operation, but doesn't disclose key traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Find packages (datasets) matching query terms.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the core purpose, earning its place efficiently.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search behavior, result format, or how parameters interact, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. For a search tool with multiple parameters, more detail is needed to be complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions 'query terms,' which loosely relates to the 'q' parameter but doesn't explain the purpose of other parameters like 'fq', 'sort', 'rows', 'start', or 'include_private'. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Find packages (datasets) matching query terms,' which includes a verb ('Find') and resource ('packages/datasets'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'package_list' or 'resource_search,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus other search/list tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'package_list' (likely lists all packages) and 'resource_search' (likely searches resources within packages), there's no indication of this tool's specific context, such as whether it's for general package searches or has unique filtering capabilities. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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