search_mods

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the return payload (ID, name, description, download count, links), but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond 'limit', rate limits, or whether results are cached — meaningful gaps for an unannotated network search.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and source, then lists return fields. Nothing is wasted, though it could have used the spare room for routing guidance.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the compensating detail an agent needs. Only ranking/sort behavior and result-count semantics are left unstated.

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% and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema with examples and a default. The description adds no syntax, matching, or sort semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('搜索模组' on Modrinth) and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from get_mod_info (search by keyword vs. fetch a known mod), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the keyword-based query parameter and the schema's example keywords suggest searching when you don't already know the ID, but the description never states when to prefer get_mod_info or other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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