search_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is 'Read-only,' returns 'up to 10 families,' and includes specific returned fields ('status, EOSL window, and page URL'). This gives the agent a solid understanding of side effects and output.

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 tight and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey purpose, matching behavior, read-only nature, output limit, return fields, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and when to use other tools. It covers discovery, matching, result size, and output fields, so an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying 'case-insensitive substring' and providing an example ('nexus 9300'). This enhances parameter understanding without being necessary for basic use.

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 tool's function: 'Search tracked product families by vendor, product line, or series name.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('product families'), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning lookup_part and get_family for other use cases.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this for discovery when you have a name.' It also names alternatives with their appropriate contexts: 'for an exact part number use lookup_part, and use get_family with a returned slug for the full record.' This is clear, actionable guidance.

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