distributor_catalog_search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only behavior and the important staleness caveat (locally-synced, not live stock). It could add more about return shape or pagination, but the key behavioral trait is well covered.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The primary behavior is front-loaded, the data-source caveat follows, and the actionable alternative is given in the same sentence. Excellent economy.

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 simple three-parameter search tool, the description covers the main concerns: what is searched, what data is read, the stale-data caveat, read-only status, and the appropriate fallback. Minor gaps remain around optional parameter behavior, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to 'query' by listing accepted identifier types (keyword, stock #, UPC, MFG #), but it does not clarify 'limit' or the 'distributor' parameter, including the meaning of the null default. Partial compensation only.

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 leads with a specific action ('Typeahead the distributor's catalog') and enumerates supported search inputs: keyword, stock #, UPC, MFG #. This clearly identifies the resource and differentiates it from sibling catalog searches like rsr_catalog_search.

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?

It explicitly states that this tool reads a locally-synced catalog, not live stock, and directs the agent to use distributor_check_availability before acting on a quantity. This gives a concrete alternative and the condition for choosing it.

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