search_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the key behavior of resolving to a concrete package URL, which is useful, but does not mention search semantics (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), result count, pagination, or error behavior. This is minimal but non-tautological 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and zero filler. The second sentence adds immediate usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 only two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, provides a concrete use case, and hints at the return type (URL). It lacks details about behavior with multiple results or no results, but is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly in the stated workflow.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'query' and 'ecosystem', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces that 'query' is a vague package name.

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 'Search Phylax for artifacts by name' with a specific verb (search), resource (artifacts), and scope (by name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools by noting its role in resolving vague names to concrete URLs before verifying.

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 explicitly says 'Use to resolve a vague package name to a concrete package URL before verifying it,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies the alternative (verifying) without naming specific siblings, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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