search_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search action and lists registries, but it does not describe the result shape, result limits, pagination, network dependency, or any other behavioral characteristic the agent might need to anticipate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and scope in a compact form.

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 with two required parameters and full schema coverage, so invoking it correctly is relatively easy. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any mention of return value or result shape leaves the description incomplete for an agent predicting what the call will produce.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (query with examples, registry with enum values), so the baseline is 3. The description adds friendly registry names that map to the enum values, but otherwise provides no new parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search'), defines the resource ('packages/libraries'), and scopes it to a package registry with enumerable examples (npm, pub.dev, CocoaPods, Maven Central, PyPI). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs, which targets documentation, and get_package_info, which would retrieve details for a known package.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_package_info for follow-up details on a specific package, nor does it contrast with search_docs for documentation searches. The only differentiation is the implicit 'package registry' phrase, which is not sufficient for confident tool selection.

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