search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the return shape (hit records with metadata + snippet), the opaque nature of `ref`, the relationship to `get`, and how `scope` restricts hits to avoid cross-part contamination. It does not mention error behavior or edge cases, but for a search tool this is solid 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and return format, the second connects to `get`, and the third gives scope usage with a concrete example. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and full param coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how refs feed into `get`, and how to handle part-specific queries. The only minor gap is not explicitly differentiating from all siblings, but the description still gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, k, and scope. The description adds meaningful value by providing a concrete scope example ('device:NE5532'), explaining the purpose of the scope restriction, and clarifying the role of the returned refs. This goes beyond what the raw schema states.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the datasheet corpus'. It also describes what the tool returns (hit records with metadata, snippet, and opaque ref) and explicitly distinguishes itself from `get` by telling the agent to pass refs to `get` for full content. This is unambiguous and differentiates it from at least one sibling.

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 gives clear context for when and how to use the tool: part-specific queries should use scope='device:<MPN>', and after searching, the returned refs should be passed to `get`. It does not explicitly name alternatives like `find_parts` or `lookup`, or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full when/when-not alternative comparison.

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