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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile; the description adds value by disclosing that results are provenance-backed and every attribute was corroborated against datasheets or vendor pages. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, the first front-loads the action and scope, the second adds filter details and data-quality context. No redundant filler.

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 6-parameter search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers core search behavior, filtering, and data provenance, but omits details about limit behavior and project_context ranking (the latter only appears in the schema).

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that category, build, and role are filter criteria, but leaves limit semantics and possible values for the filter parameters unspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over the demo catalogue's provenance-backed part records', and explicitly names the filter dimensions (category, build, role). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_part or compare_parts.

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?

It establishes clear usage context: full-text search with filtering by category, build, or role. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative sibling tool (e.g., get_part for a single record) or any exclusions.

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