find_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals a read-style lookup, but says nothing about authentication against a private registry, rate limits, result ordering, or whether only visible/authorized packages are searched — all meaningful gaps for a registry search.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It identifies the action, the resource, and the match modes in one pass, which is the right size for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity read tool with no nested params, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema and no annotations, it should at least hint at what a result contains or that results are paginated/limited, which it does not.

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 both query and size are documented structurally; baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'by name or keyword' adds a little meaning to query (it accepts either an exact name or free-text term), but size/default behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 (search) and a clearly scoped resource (private packages in the Verdaccio registry) plus the matching modes (name or keyword). It implicitly contrasts with retrieval-style siblings like get_package, but never names an alternative, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for when the exact package name isn't known, contrasting with get_package. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative to route to.

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