search_installed_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that filtering and pagination are supported, providing some behavioral context beyond a simple list, but does not detail response format or other traits. This meets the baseline for annotated read-only tools.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It effectively communicates the core function and key features.

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 low-complexity search tool with complete parameter schema, an output schema, and appropriate annotations, the description is sufficient. It could specify what 'installed packages' refers to (e.g., OS packages) but this is not critical given the tool name and context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description's mention of 'filtering' and 'pagination' maps to search_term and page/page_size, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search') and resource ('installed packages'), and adds 'filtering and pagination' to define scope. It distinguishes from sibling search_* tools by targeting a unique resource not covered elsewhere.

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 description implies usage for finding installed packages with optional filtering/pagination, which is clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but no other sibling targets packages, so this is adequate.

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