ingrammicro_search_renewals

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some scope information by stating 'upcoming or past' renewals and noting the lookup workflow, but it does not add behavioral details like pagination behavior, result size limits, or API quirks. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 compact: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and filter scope, while the second explains the tool's role in the larger workflow. 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?

Given the read-only/idempotent annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides what an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. It explains the tool's purpose and how it connects to ingrammicro_get_renewal without duplicating structured metadata.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions several filter categories (order, vendor, end customer, opportunity status) but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('renewals'), and identifies the key filter dimensions: order, vendor, end customer, and opportunity status. It also contextualizes the tool within a workflow by mentioning it is used to find the renewal id before ingrammicro_get_renewal, which clearly distinguishes it from other search/get 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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Use this to find the renewal id before ingrammicro_get_renewal.' This makes the intended workflow explicit, though it does not spell out when-not-to-use alternatives or contrast with related search tools such as ingrammicro_search_orders or ingrammicro_search_deals.

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