Search the furniture catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of the 'front' field (wall/free semantics) and the scope=project behavior of listing existing plan items. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Find catalog items') but then packs a lot of detail about row format, front semantics, and scope behavior. All content is relevant and earns its place, but the density makes it less concise than ideal. It could be split into clearer sections.

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 and annotations covering the read-only hint, the description provides additional context on data semantics (front field) and the scope mode, making it fully complete for correct invocation. There are no missing details an agent would need to call the tool appropriately.

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 adds extra meaning for the scope parameter, explaining it lists existing plan items including imported models, which is not fully captured in the schema. It also clarifies the output field semantics (like front), indirectly aiding parameter use. This exceeds the baseline.

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 'Find catalog items' with a specific resource and then details the output row format. It distinguishes this from placement or other tools by focusing on search and listing. The verb and resource are explicit, and the scope=project mode further differentiates a special use case.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use scope=project: to match a new piece to what the plan already uses, avoiding reintroducing generic items. It also implies the default mode for generic catalog search. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it gives clear context for the two modes, which is sufficient.

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