search_land_parts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include footprints and actual connection ports, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the read-only nature of the operation. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loads the what and how in the first sentence, then follows with scope and routing. The category enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but overall the text is efficient and each sentence contributes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the purpose is clear. However, for a search tool with four undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits pagination and filtering semantics that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 4 parameters. The description lists categories, but that list merely repeats the enum already present in the schema and adds no new meaning. The limit, offset, and search parameters are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it searches installed components for land builds, and it differentiates itself from siblings by naming search_parts (full catalogue) and get_part_definition/get_part_orientation (details). The scope 'land builds' and the category list make the resource concrete. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape but the resource is unmistakable.

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 routes the agent to alternatives: get_part_definition/get_part_orientation for details, and it clarifies the relationship to search_parts (family filters vs the full catalogue). It conveys the intended context (land builds) without spelling out explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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