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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context: keyword matching order ('parts matching every word are returned first') and the fallback behavior when nothing matches exactly, which is not derivable from annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste: the searchable surface is front-loaded and the return shape follows. Nothing extraneous for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the ranking/fallback behavior is disclosed. It is nearly complete, though it does not state result-limiting behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter or ordering guarantees.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including multilingual handling, 7-digit OE base matching, and model-year-as-fitment-filter) are already documented in the schema. The description mostly echoes schema content, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (MapleV Tesla Model 3/Model Y collision parts catalog) and states the matching dimensions. The catalog scope and the returned fields (names, OE numbers, grade, category, CAD list price) clearly separate it from siblings get_part and list_categories.

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?

Implicit that this is the discovery tool versus get_part (single-part lookup) and list_categories, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite is stated. An agent can infer the routing from the siblings, but the description does not spell it out.

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