search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search intent and target fields; it does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, how a null query behaves, whether results are paginated, or any authorization constraints. These gaps are material for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and search criteria are presented compactly and efficiently.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description leaves the interplay between query and the listed fields implicit, and it offers no guidance about when to choose this over sibling search tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the 'query' parameter searches by name, code, or type, but it does not explicitly map the parameter, nor does it address the 'limit' parameter at all. This is minimal compensation for a 0% coverage 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('stock locations') and specifies the matching criteria ('by name, code or type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products, search_lots, and get_location_detail without requiring schema inspection.

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 clearly states the tool's context: use it to search stock locations by name, code, or type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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