search_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the default repository behavior, but it does not explain result ranking, pagination behavior, or how the search handles open-world repository scope.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the default repository value is front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity around search scope and parameters.

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 five parameters, an output schema, and several sibling lookup tools, this description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It covers the repository default but omits query behavior, pagination, bioc_version relevance, and when to choose this search tool over package-info alternatives.

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 for five parameters but only mentions repository and the default value cran. It gives no explanation of query syntax, limit, offset, or bioc_version, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 uses a clear search verb and identifies the resources searched: repository names and title keywords. It is understandable that this is a package search tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_package_info or check_package_version.

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 only usage-like detail is that the repository defaults to cran. There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_package_info, get_dependencies, or other sibling lookup tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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