search_artifacts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses meaningful runtime behavior: default backend selection, closed/offline mode fallback routing, and the MAVEN_MCP_REPOSITORY_BASE / mirrors context. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the routing detail. Reasonably tight, though the second sentence is dense with technical terms and could be split for readability.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers the search action and backend selection well; minor gaps remain around what results contain and any auth/prerequisite context, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the repositoryType enum and the groupId:artifactId coordinate format. The description reinforces 'by keyword' and the closed-mode routing but adds little parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 Maven artifacts by keyword,' which is concrete and clearly distinguishable from the version/vulnerability/license siblings. It lacks explicit naming of an alternative tool, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 explains backend routing ('Uses Maven Central Solr by default; in closed/offline mode ... routes to Nexus 3 REST or Artifactory'), which implies when each path applies, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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