search_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of the response. This is minimal transparency for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the verb and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 description lacks information about the output format or what the search results contain. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided context on the return structure to help the agent interpret results. This gap reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., listing indices that match the enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 specifies the action 'search for packages' and the resource 'package indices', with explicit examples (PyPI, npm, crates.io, Terraform Registry). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'package_info' which likely provides details on a specific package.

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 searching packages but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'package_info' or 'search_docker_image'. No exclusions or context-driven triggers are mentioned.

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