boutique_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond restating the search scope. It does not describe return format, pagination, or any operational characteristics, but given the strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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, concise sentence: 'Search the MateMatic Boutique catalog for connectors and skills.' It front-loads the core purpose with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.

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?

Given the comprehensive schema with parameter descriptions, the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It doesn't explain return values (covered by output schema) or filters (covered by schema), and it adequately states the search scope. A slightly more detailed mention of multi-language support or filtering options could improve it, but it is not essential.

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?

All four parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (query, limit, entry_type, jurisdiction), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already carries the full burden.

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 'Search the MateMatic Boutique catalog for connectors and skills' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (MateMatic Boutique catalog), with scope limited to connectors and skills. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like boutique_get and boutique_whats_new through the verb 'search', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The tool's name and description imply a search use case, but there are no mentions of alternatives or exclusions. The context of sibling tools suggests this is for finding items, but the description alone does not clarify when to prefer this over boutique_get or boutique_request_coverage.

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