Search integration packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's statement that it fetches all packages and filters client-side adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the lack of server-side filtering. However, it does not describe pagination, response format, or how filters combine, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the purpose and then the key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation coverage (only read-only hint). The description explains the basic search function and client-side filtering but omits critical details like return value structure, how filters interact, and any performance caveats beyond the filtering note. For a tool with this complexity, it is incomplete.

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 compensate. It lists the five parameters (ID, version, name, vendor, mode) matching the schema, which tells the agent what fields exist but adds no additional meaning about matching behavior (exact vs. partial), case sensitivity, or combination logic (AND/OR). This is minimal but not completely absent.

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 the specific action 'search' on 'integration packages' and lists the filterable fields (ID, version, name, vendor, mode). While it clearly identifies the resource and operation, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_integration_packages' which likely returns all packages without filtering, though the 'search' verb and the mention of client-side filtering imply a distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description notes that it fetches all packages and filters client-side, which hints at use cases needing filtering, but does not mention that 'get_integration_packages' might be more appropriate for unfiltered access, nor does it discuss performance trade-offs or when not to use it.

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