search_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: case-insensitive matching, collapsing runs of spaces, a max limit of 200, and the guarantee that it returns both the limited result set and the total match count. This gives an agent accurate expectations without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 tight and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second paragraph adds only the behavioral details needed for correct invocation. No redundant phrasing or filler is present.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what to search, how matching behaves, result limits, and what is returned. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and using the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'query' is a substring matched case-insensitively with whitespace normalization, and that 'limit' caps results at 200 with a default of 50. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the LDraw library's parts by description or file-name substring.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like render_ldraw_file or bill_of_materials, which serve different purposes.

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 makes the intended use clear: searching parts by substring across description or filename. It provides concrete matching semantics and result limits, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives; none of the siblings perform a similar part search, so explicit exclusion is less critical.

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