search_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not disclose search semantics: exact vs partial matching, case handling, ordering of results, or empty-result behavior. It also says nothing about how the query string is interpreted across the three dimensions (are they OR'd, or is it a single free-text field?). The only behavioral hint is the implicit notion that a query can be a name, category, or ID.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the action and matchable fields front-loaded. The inline examples are the most valuable part rather than padding. Slightly compressed for the gaps it leaves, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations is simple, so the bar is lower, but the description never indicates what a result looks like (which part fields come back) or how `limit` shapes the response. An agent knows what to send but not what to expect back.

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 description must compensate. It does useful work for `query` by enumerating the accepted identifier kinds with examples, which the schema's bare `string` type does not convey. However, `limit` is never mentioned — no explanation of its effect on result count, ordering, or whether truncation occurs at the default of 10.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (parts) and clarifies the matchable dimensions: name, category, and part ID. The three literal examples ("battery", "Display", "P104") make the scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the siblings, but none of them (supplier_scorecard, purchase_orders, bom_cost, supply_risks, simulate_delay) overlap this domain, so ambiguity is low.

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?

Usage is only implied: the examples suggest callers can pass a plain name, a category label, or an ID, but there is no statement of when to use this versus another lookup, no guidance on match behavior (fuzzy vs exact, case sensitivity), and no mention of what happens when nothing matches. Adequate for a simple search tool, but inference is required.

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