square_catalog_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as auth requirements, pagination behavior, result shape, or whether all catalog object types are searched by default.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is as concise as possible while stating the core operation.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema and only partial schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits pagination via cursor/limit, default object type behavior, authentication requirements, and any sense of the returned catalog objects.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate. It clarifies only that text is used for searching, while limit, cursor, and access_token remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, and object_types is only covered by the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search Square catalog objects by text. This is clear enough to distinguish a text search from unrelated tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from the sibling square_catalog_list.

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 implies usage for text-based catalog search but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over square_catalog_list or other Square tools.

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