crates_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and network profile is fully covered upstream. The description adds only that the corpus is the crates.io registry; it says nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, empty-result behavior, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could carry one more clause (e.g. how to fetch full crate details) without becoming bloated, so it is efficient but slightly under-packed for the tool's role.

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 two-parameter, read-only, open-world search with full schema coverage and declared annotations, the description covers what the tool is and where it queries. The missing piece is the relationship to crates_get and any note about pagination/result volume, but neither is required to call the tool 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%, with 'Crate name or keyword' on query and 'default 10, max 50' on per_page, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'by name or keyword' echoes that without adding syntax, matching rules, or ordering detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search Rust crates') plus the data source ('on crates.io') and the query axis ('by name or keyword'). It is unambiguous on its own, but it never references the closely related crates_get sibling, so an agent must infer the search-vs-fetch split.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion; the search-vs-detail distinction against crates_get in the same registry is left entirely to inference. Usage is implied by the verb 'Search', which is conventional enough that an agent will likely pick correctly, but nothing in the text confirms it.

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