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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add genuinely useful ranking behavior ('exact SKU, SKU prefix, title, description'). It does not disclose that this is read-only, whether results are paginated, what an empty result means, or anything about permissions/rate limits.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the ranking detail second. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query types and relevance ordering, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the result shape or pagination behavior, which the absence of an output schema would otherwise justify including.

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 (query, brand, model, part_type, limit) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's matching-order sentence adds marginal ranking meaning but no format/syntax detail 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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('Satmarin catalog for a part') with the accepted query types spelled out. It is clearly distinct from check_compatibility, get_quote and resolve_supersession, but it never states its relationship to the part-number-adjacent sibling resolve_supersession, so an agent still has to guess which to pick when the query concerns a superseded part.

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?

Usage is implied by the query-type enumeration (part number, model, free text): call it when you have one of those and want to locate a part. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no hint about what to do when exact matching fails and resolve_supersession might be needed.

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