ingrammicro_search_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the behavioral context that this search returns order-identifying information needed for subsequent operations, and clarifies it covers past and current orders. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not detail pagination or output shape (partly covered by output schema).

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core action and criteria are front-loaded, followed by the critical workflow context naming downstream tools. Every word 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?

Given the 13 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary contextual information: what it searches, the workflow it supports, and the tools it precedes. Nothing critical is missing.

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% — every parameter already has a meaningful description including defaults and allowed values for order_status. The tool description merely mentions general search criteria already present in the schema, adding no extra semantic nuance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'past/current orders', listing key filter dimensions (PO number, status, product, date). It also distinguishes itself from downstream operations like get/modify/cancel by explicitly naming them, making its role unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to find the exact order number before calling ingrammicro_get_order, ingrammicro_modify_order, or ingrammicro_cancel_order.' This tells an agent when to invoke this tool and positions it as a prerequisite step in an order workflow, which is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly.

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