search_wires

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses supported query formats with examples ('22 awg red', '18 awg black white stripe') and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not describe result shape, pagination behavior, or any access requirements—acceptable for a simple search tool but not rich.

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 long, each earning its place: first states purpose, second gives usage criteria, third provides query syntax examples. 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, the schema covers all parameters, and the description supplies usage context, exclusions, and query syntax. It does not describe what fields results contain, but with no output schema, the agent can reasonably infer it returns wire part matches. This is sufficient for a low-complexity search tool.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, making schema coverage 100%. The description adds value by providing concrete query format examples, which clarifies what the 'query' parameter expects beyond the schema's generic 'Search query' text. Limit and offset are self-explanatory.

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 Splice wire parts database.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_connectors and search_cables by focusing on wire parts. The statement 'Only use when the user asks to find a wire in the database' further pins down its scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Only use when the user asks to find a wire in the database') and when not to use it ('For most cases, create wire BOM entries directly with gauge/color you already know'). This provides both positive and negative usage guidance, satisfying the 'when/when-not' requirement.

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