clear_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cached responses are dropped (a destructive action) and that doing so affects the quota of subsequent searches, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not mention undoability, but for a cache clear that is acceptable. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are provided.

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 two concise paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary action and then explaining the quota implication. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no required parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and quota behavior. There is nothing missing that an agent would need to decide when and how to call it 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?

The input schema already fully documents the 'source' parameter with 'Clear one source only; omit to clear everything' (100% schema coverage). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action (drop cached distributor responses) and the goal (force fresh stock and pricing). This is a distinct resource and action, and none of the sibling tools (search_parts, source_status, part_details) perform cache clearing, so it's easily differentiated without opening the schema.

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 context that clearing the cache forces fresh data and makes subsequent searches consume real request budget, implying the tool should be used when fresh data is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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