search_packages

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention that it is a read-only search, that results are paginated, that query syntax supports filters like 'is:official', or any other behavioral details. The schema covers some of this, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero wasted wording, and it is entirely to the point.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and the input schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks any behavioral context beyond the bare minimum, such as clarifying that it returns a list of packages or noting any limitations. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate or add extra context about parameters.

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 it searches for Pawn packages on PawnDex. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Pawn packages on PawnDex'), which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_package or get_stats.

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 usage context is implied (when you need to find packages), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_package for known packages. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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