search_catalog_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses behavioral traits: server-side vs client-side search, partial matching, case-insensitive, hierarchy in results, collapse to single detail on exact match, and error with list on multiple matches. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the overall purpose, then explains the two main search modes. It is concise and structured logically, with no redundant information.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all parameter semantics and search behaviors. It describes the return format (list with hierarchy or detail) and error condition. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use 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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic difference between `search` and `catalog_item_name`, the behavior of `desk_name` as a fuzzy match, and how parameters interact (e.g., combine with area_id). This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches for service catalog items by free text or by name/filter within a specific desk. It identifies the action (search), resource (catalog items), and method (by term or name). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the domain is distinct enough.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use `search` (server-side, approximate term) vs `catalog_item_name` (client-side, specific name). It also mentions combining with `area_id` or `catalog_id` to restrict scope. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but covers parameter usage well.

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