packageSearchHelp

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 only states the action ('Performs a package search help') without explaining what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it returns results, modifies data, requires authentication, or has side effects. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's action, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('type' and 'name'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema adequately documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from parameter understanding.

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 'Performs a package search help' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal added meaning. While it implies a search-related function for packages, it lacks specificity about what kind of search or help is provided, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'searchPackage' or 'searchObject'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios compared to other search-related tools in the sibling list.

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