package_search

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'search for packages' without mentioning side effects, authentication, rate limits, or result behavior. No details on pagination or filtering beyond the schema.

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?

Concise, with front-loaded purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more efficient, but no fluff.

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 4 parameters, 2 required, an enum, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, output format, and behavioral context. The tool is complex enough to require more guidance than provided.

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%. Description does not explain any parameter meaning (query, reasoning, registry, max_results). Examples hint at usage but do not clarify semantics, types, or constraints. For a 4-parameter tool with 0% coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'packages', with specific context of discovering libraries by functionality. Examples reinforce purpose and differentiate from sibling tool 'package_info' which requires known package name.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'find packages that solve a specific problem' and 'when you know what you need but not the package name'. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the examples and phrasing offer clear guidance.

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