search_inventory

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. It explains what each filter does (exact matches on brand, part_type, location) and that query is free-text, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, result limits, or how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR). It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but the behavioral information is basic.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line provides useful information without redundancy or unnecessary prose. The information is front-loaded with the main action and then detailed parameters.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 optional filters, no required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters clearly and states the search scope. It does not cover edge cases like empty query behavior or pagination, but these are not critical for a search tool and the output schema likely handles return value documentation. It is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides only property names and types, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining each parameter's semantics: query as free-text across fields, and brand/part_type/location as exact matches on corresponding fields. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it could further clarify default behavior when query is empty.

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 clearly states the action ('Search inventory items') and specifies the search criteria ('by keyword, brand, part type, or location'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_materials (lists all materials) and get_inventory_item (retrieves a specific item), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when searching inventory by keyword or filters) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when you need a specific item by ID, use get_inventory_item). The usage context is present but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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