Package Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the ecosystem support boundary, but says nothing about result ranking, rate limits, or network/auth behavior expectations of a search call.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded before the ecosystem constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the ecosystem limitation is disclosed. What remains thin is guidance on how keyword matching behaves or what to do when a search returns nothing, which is minor for a read-only search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point because the ecosystem sentence resolves a genuine inconsistency in the schema, whose enum lists only npm/cargo while its own property description claims "One of: npm, pypi, cargo." That clarification is real value beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search for packages by keyword") and describes the result shape ("top matches with descriptions"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like package_info or package_versions. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 ecosystem note gives real selection guidance: the tool only works for npm and cargo, and PyPI is excluded because it has no public search API. That is an implicit when-not condition, though no alternative tool is named for the cases this one cannot serve.

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