search_parts

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. While 'Search' implies read-only behavior, the description omits pagination behavior details, result format, rate limits, or whether matches are fuzzy/partial vs exact. Does not disclose if the catalog is live inventory or master catalog.

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 total. First sentence establishes purpose; second establishes usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler content. Appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation but leaves behavioral gaps. For a paginated search tool, some mention of result structure or pagination behavior would improve completeness, though the input schema is well-covered.

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%, with all three parameters (query, limit, page) fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'name, number, or description' which mirrors the schema's description of the query parameter, adding minimal new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is comprehensive.

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?

Clear specific verb (Search) and resource (parts catalog in Shopmonkey). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'list_inventory_parts' or 'get_inventory_part', though the term 'Search' implies a catalog lookup distinct from enumeration or exact ID retrieval.

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?

States 'Use for finding parts by name, number, or description' which provides implied usage context for when to use fuzzy text matching. Lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., when to use list_inventory_parts instead) or alternative tools.

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