composer_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or result format. For a search tool, this leaves significant ambiguity about how results are returned and whether there are limits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and resource. No extraneous words or filler, 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 the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It does not explain the return format or any additional constraints beyond the query, leaving some gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. The description repeats the query purpose but does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as specifying allowed characters or format. Therefore, it meets 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 clearly states the tool searches Packagist for PHP packages using a query string. It specifies the resource (Packagist) and the type of packages (PHP), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search other registries (e.g., npm, PyPI, RubyGems).

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 implies usage for searching PHP packages but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crate_search or gem_search. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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