parts_search

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 merely states the search action but does not mention any return format, result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral traits beyond the basic action are not disclosed.

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, concise sentence that effectively conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations and schema parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to provide a complete understanding. It does not cover usage scenarios, parameter semantics fully, or any behavioral caveats. Although an output schema exists, the missing usage and parameter details leave the tool inadequately documented.

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. It clarifies that 'q' is the free text query, but the 'limit' parameter is not described at all; its default of 3 is present in the schema but without explanation of its meaning or effect. Thus, the description only partially explains the parameters.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('Nexar/Octopart') with a specific scope ('parts matching free text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'part_by_mpn' (which searches by MPN) and 'best_datasheet_url' (which retrieves a datasheet URL).

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 when to use the tool: when you have free text to search for parts. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using 'part_by_mpn' for exact part numbers. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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