search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful trait that the search fans out across multiple registered stores, but it says nothing about result aggregation or ordering, latency/rate-limit behavior, what happens when a store fails or returns nothing, or that the limit applies per shop rather than overall.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope come first. It is efficient but leaves room for a short clarifying clause that would have earned a 5.

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 6-parameter read tool with rich schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. It omits what the results look like (per-shop grouping, price currency, availability flags) and any guidance on combining filters, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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%, so every one of the six parameters is already documented with examples, defaults and bounds. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (no note on price currency interaction or country default semantics), so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search electronic components') and adds scope ('across registered online stores by keyword or part name'), which implicitly separates it from search_components_by_type. It never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than guaranteed.

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 keyword or part name' hints that typed lookup belongs to search_components_by_type, and the store scope hints that list_supported_shops is a different concern. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing registered shops first.

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