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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid package names, or the format of returned information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool with 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, response format, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool effectively in a real-world context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'package basic information and dependencies', which aligns with the parameters 'package_name', 'include_dependencies', and 'include_dev_dependencies', adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or implications of the boolean parameters, leaving ambiguity about what 'dev dependencies' entail or how they differ from regular dependencies.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('package basic information and dependencies from CPAN'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_readme_from_cpan' or 'search_packages_from_cpan', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_packages_from_cpan' for broader searches or 'get_readme_from_cpan' for documentation, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'package README and usage examples' but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of parameters like 'package_name', 'version', or 'include_examples'. This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('package README and usage examples from CPAN'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_info_from_cpan' or 'search_packages_from_cpan', which might also retrieve package information, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It mentions 'usage examples' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what kind of search results to expect, whether there's pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description only states what the tool does at the most basic level.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted text.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search, what format results return, how to interpret the limit parameter, or how this differs from the sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what the 'query' and 'limit' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess about search syntax, query format, or what the limit controls.

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 the action ('Search') and target resource ('packages in CPAN'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from the sibling 'get_package_info_from_cpan' tool, which appears to retrieve specific package information rather than search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search function is appropriate versus using 'get_package_info_from_cpan' for known packages.

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