search_connectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose fuzzy query support ('Supports fuzzy queries like "molex 24 pin male"'), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format contains, or any pagination/ordering behaviors. This is a moderate level of transparency for a search tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides actionable guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and an example query. It also hints at output usage (sourcePartId). It could mention result limit/pagination, but the schema already covers those parameters.

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 100%, with descriptions for query, limit, and offset. The description adds semantic value by explaining query style with a concrete example ('molex 24 pin male') and by clarifying the query's purpose (finding parts or getting a sourcePartId). This goes beyond the schema's basic 'Search query' label.

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 the tool's function: 'Search the Splice connector parts database.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the connection to connectors is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling search_wires and search_cables.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only use this when the user asks you to find a part in the database, or when you need a sourcePartId for linking. For most cases, prefer creating BOM entries directly with the MPN/manufacturer you already know.' This clearly defines when to use and when not to use, including an alternative approach.

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