square_search_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it returns a list of matching objects. The description is too brief for a search tool.

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, with a single sentence for purpose and a clear list of parameters. There is no wasted text, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more effectively. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, the description omits context such as whether the search applies to all Square locations, case sensitivity, or required permissions. It covers the core functionality and parameters adequately but has gaps in scope and behavior.

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 0%, but the tool description explains each parameter ('object_types', 'query', 'limit') in the Args section, including an example for object_types. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Square catalog', specifying the scope as items, variations, and categories. This differentiates it from sibling tools like square_get_catalog_item (single item retrieval) and square_search_orders (order search).

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 usage when needing to search the catalog by object types or free-text query, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as square_get_catalog_item for specific item lookups. No exclusions or context are given.

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