search_maven_central

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful context: the operation is a remote online search against the configured mirror and can return artifacts not installed locally. However, it never explicitly states a read-only safety profile and does not address failure modes such as network unavailability or mirror misconfiguration.

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 with no waste: the first states the action and scope, the second the two primary use cases. The core purpose is front-loaded and every clause 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?

The 9 parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description anchors the two main use cases well. But with no annotations and no output schema, the result shape and the read-only safety profile are left implicit. Adequate for a conceptually simple search tool, yet not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest selection guidance by mapping use cases to parameter groups: 'discover coordinates' implies query/group_id/artifact_id, while 'find which published artifact contains a class' implies class_name/fully_qualified_class. It doesn't explain filter combination or pagination semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Maven Central or the configured mirror') and defines the scope ('online', 'including ones not installed locally'). It names two concrete use cases — discovering coordinates and finding which published artifact contains a class — which separates it from local tools like list_artifacts and search_classes in the sibling set.

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?

'Use this to discover coordinates or find which published artifact contains a class' gives explicit when-to-use scenarios, and 'including ones not installed locally' signals when the remote search is the right choice over local alternatives. It stops short of naming siblings or stating when-not-to-use, so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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