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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output pointer (ids for fetch) and the aliasing relationship, but says nothing about limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior beyond what the output schema provides.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the query semantics and a clear rule for choosing this over search_parts, which an agent needs given the near-identical sibling.

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 single parameter 'query' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so there is no guidance on query syntax, whether it is natural language or keywords, or the 500-character limit's implications.

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 (Partsgraph demo catalogue) and notes it is an alias of search_parts shaped to the search/fetch connector contract, which meaningfully separates it from the sibling. It does not clarify how it differs from fetch or get_part beyond returning ids.

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?

'Returns result ids for fetch' implies a search-then-fetch workflow, which is useful context. However, it never says when to pick this over search_parts (the tool it aliases) or when not to use it, leaving the choice to inference.

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