search_rp_on_modrinth

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions that results are capped at 'limit', but says nothing about being an external network call, rate limits, failure behavior, or how results are ordered.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely restates the schema's limit field, which is minor redundancy but not harmful.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to adequate. However, the absence of annotations means the description should have covered the remote/network nature and result shape, which it does not.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and limits. The description echoes the limit behavior ('returns up to `limit` results') and hints at query semantics with 'by name or tag', but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 Modrinth for resource packs') and scopes the input to 'by name or tag', so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not reference any sibling, though the remote-registry nature makes it fairly self-distinguishing from the local pack-inspection siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point before calling read_packmeta or get_rp_info, with nothing in the description to confirm that ordering.

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