Search spare parts

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 usefully discloses that two sources are searched (the AMC price list and the pump manual's spare-parts pages), but says nothing about result ordering, whether matches are exact or fuzzy, or how the `limit` cap behaves in practice.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the named catalog, which is good. The long parenthetical enumeration of part categories (intensifier, check valves, seals, on/off valve, ...) is informative but bulky and pushes the second data source to the tail.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key unknowns: what corpus is searched and how to express a query. Only the result-set behavior (ordering, truncation at `limit`) remains unspecified, which is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 50%: `query` is documented with examples, while `limit` (default 20, max 60) is undocumented. The description reinforces the query semantics ('by name or order number') consistent with the schema example but adds no new parameter detail and is silent on `limit`.

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 (search) and a concrete resource (the H2O Jet / PTV spare parts price list plus the pump manual's spare-parts pages), and enumerates part categories so an agent knows the catalog's scope. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the generic `search` or `find_component` siblings.

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 phrase 'by name or order number' implies the appropriate query style, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, and no sibling alternative (e.g. `search`, `find_component`) is named. Usage must be inferred from the corpus description.

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