Module Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: no indication that this is a read-only remote lookup, no pagination behavior despite page/page_size parameters, no rate-limit or connectivity caveats. For an unannotated tool, this leaves the agent guessing about the call's mechanics.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and search dimension front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized for what it covers, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter, zero-coverage, unannotated tool the description omits pagination, source/network behavior, and any routing against the many module_* siblings. It is too thin for the tool's surface area.

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 0% across three parameters. The description only hints at the semantics of 'query' ('by name or description') and says nothing about what 'page' or 'page_size' control or their defaults, so it fails to compensate for the empty 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 resource ('modules') plus the target source ('Drupal.org'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings like theme_search, module_get, or module_versions, but the domain is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Search Drupal.org' implies a discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. versus local inventory_modules or module_get), and no mention of prerequisites. Guidance must be inferred entirely.

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