search_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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint ('installed' parts only, not all definitions) and implies a safe read via 'search', but is silent on permissions, error behavior, or whether results are fuzzy vs exact matches.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and key, then appends scope and return information. No filler, though mentioning returned fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a search tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope and the search key. It still leaves sibling disambiguation, pagination semantics, and read-only confirmation unaddressed, which matters in this crowded sibling set.

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 schema documents none of the limit/offset/search params. The description compensates partially by naming the search key ('name/id') and flagging pagination, which effectively maps to all three parameters conceptually, but gives no formats, defaults, or matching behavior.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Search installed part definitions') with the lookup key ('by name/id') specified, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like query_parts, get_part_definition, and search_land_parts, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus query_parts, get_part_definition, or search_land_parts, all of which appear to overlap on part lookup. The 'installed' qualifier hints at scope but no explicit context or exclusion is given.

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