search_packages_from_cpan

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.