catalog_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'read-only' sentence largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive detail is that relationship actions 'return rich records without hiding model information,' which hints at output behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource list, with no padding in the enumeration. The final 'This tool is read-only' sentence is largely redundant against the annotations, a minor waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 9-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description omits the meaning of most parameters, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does enumerate plausible catalog_type and action_name values, but sort, limit, order, query, offset, item_id, and category_type are entirely undocumented, leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus an enumerated set of Snipe-IT catalog resource types, so the agent can identify the tool's domain. The closing 'This tool is read-only' implicitly distinguishes it from the catalog_write sibling, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of relationship actions (assets_by_model, assets_by_status, etc.) reads as parameter values rather than as routing advice, and no alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer context.

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