search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key return information. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the search algorithm, result ordering, error handling, or what happens when no results are found. Given the complexity of search operations and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context would be helpful for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'search npm packages by query' which aligns with the schema's query parameter description but provides no additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('npm packages'), and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from potential sibling tools like 'package_info' or 'vulnerabilities' that might also involve npm package lookup.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the seven sibling tools listed. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search is preferred over other npm-related tools available on the server.

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