search_parts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool searches, without describing result format, pagination, source-specific behavior, rate limits, or whether the search is read-only. The source options are the only extra behavioral nuance.

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 short and front-loaded, conveying the core action and the two selectable sources in one efficient sentence. It is concise, though it sacrifices some useful context that could have been added without much length.

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 has four parameters, two enums, and no output schema, but the description provides only the bare search behavior. It omits return value shape, how source selection affects results, and any search-specific edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description aligns with the query and source parameters by mentioning keyword and source options, but it does not add meaningful detail about limit or category beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: search PC parts by keyword, with the ability to search Danawa, Compuzone, or both. It is understandable and distinct from list-based browsing, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_by_category, get_product_detail, or find_lowest_price. It mentions the searchable sources but does not explain use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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