search_obs

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the tool's safety profile, and the description adds no behavioral traits beyond confirming it searches and returns info. No contradictions, but also no extra context about pagination, rate limits, or required permissions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The '[DISCOVERY]' tag adds context, and each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, a caution about official repos, and a concrete use case. Perfectly front-loaded and 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 moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (project, repository, description). It also gives the intended use case, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the query searches for packages, and it does not mention limit or sort_by.

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 'Search the Open Build Service (OBS) for packages' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it returns package info. It explicitly differentiates from get_official_package_info by noting official repos should be checked first, making the tool's role distinct.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Always check official repos first using get_official_package_info' and states the use case as searching community-maintained packages. This explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition for using this one.

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