search_software

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/open-world/destructive, so the description's value-add is the disclosure that results are 'grouped by project, not relevance or confidence scores' and that the tool 'Always uses the live API' — genuinely useful expectations about output shape and freshness. One wrinkle: it tells the agent to follow 'next_after_id', while the schema parameter is named 'after_id', which could confuse pagination handling if the response field name differs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then result shape, then pagination — a logical order with no filler. Slightly choppy as four short sentences, and the live-API note is tacked on at the end rather than integrated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (evidence grouped by project) and pagination, and annotations cover the safety profile. Remaining gaps — limit behavior, the after_id/next_after_id naming, and no sibling routing — keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the query constraint ('at least three characters' matching minLength=3) and what query is matched against, plus how to page, but it says nothing about limit (default 10, max 25) or what after_id actually is. Partial compensation only.

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 states a concrete verb+resource (search project names, aliases, and published package names) and disambiguates the search scope from a name lookup. However, it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling lookup_software, so the agent must infer that this is the fuzzy/partial search while lookup_software is the exact one.

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 implied by 'Search ... for names' and there is useful pagination guidance ('Follow next_after_id with the same query'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs lookup_software or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent gets the how-to-continue but not the routing rule.

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