search_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: case-insensitive substring matching, limit of 10 results, and returned fields (status, EOSL window, page URL). It does not mention sorting or error behavior, but for a search tool this is adequate context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and an example, with no redundant text. The guidance to get_family is smoothly integrated. Every sentence 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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, output shape (fields and limit), and subsequent step. It is self-sufficient 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?

Schema has 100% coverage describing query as 'Search text, 1-120 characters.' The description adds meaningful semantics: case-insensitive substring behavior and an example, enriching beyond the schema's basic type/length info. This warrants a score above the baseline of 3.

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 searches tracked product families by vendor, product line, or series name, using a case-insensitive substring. It provides a concrete example and distinguishes from get_family by noting that get_family is for full records. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 gives explicit guidance: use get_family with a returned slug for the full record. This implies search is for initial discovery and get_family for detail. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use other sibling tools like lookup_part or bulk_check, but the context is clear enough for the primary workflow.

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