Search mods

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and open-world reach, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the first call per community downloads and caches the full package list, taking 10-60s on large games. That latency warning is exactly what an agent needs to plan around; it lacks detail on cache invalidation or freshness, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: the search scope leads, and the latency caveat follows. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core search behavior and the cold-cache cost but leaves optional parameters (sort, limit, includeNsfw, includeDeprecated) and result-shape/limit expectations unexplained. Adequate to call the tool, not complete.

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 low (29%), so the description should compensate more. It does add real meaning by enumerating the searchable fields, but says nothing about sort, limit, includeNsfw, includeDeprecated, or defaults, leaving most optional parameters undocumented in both places.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search a community's mods') plus the fields searched (name/owner/description/category), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like resolve_dependencies or list_communities. It stops short of explicitly naming the adjacent alternatives or when to prefer them.

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 through the community-scoped search framing but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., list_communities for discovery). The caching note is operational context rather than routing guidance.

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