packageSearchHelp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it offers no information about what the tool does beyond the vague 'package search help'—no details on whether it's read-only or mutative, authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's behavior.

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, vague sentence that under-specifies the tool's function rather than being concise. While it's brief, it fails to front-load useful information or structure content effectively. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, and this description lacks substance, making it inefficient for agent understanding.

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 implied by the tool name (involving package search and help functionality), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, it fails to provide sufficient context for the agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description does not meet the needs for a tool with potential behavioral nuances.

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, with parameters 'type' and 'name' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'package value help type' entails or how 'name' interacts with the search. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal elaboration. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination (e.g., 'search for packages using help functionality' or 'retrieve package search assistance') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition'. While it vaguely indicates package-related search help, it fails to provide clear purpose.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools that might handle similar functionality. Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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