rsr_catalog_search

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

States 'Read-only,' disclosing the key behavioral trait for a query tool. With no annotations, this is crucial. However, it does not detail return format, pagination, or edge cases, but the core 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?

Three sentences front-load the primary action, scope, and critical alternative. Every sentence adds value: search domain, identifier types, sibling reference, safety (read-only), and conversion hint. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on what the search returns (e.g., fields, pagination count). It implies catalog rows via 'Promote a catalog row' but doesn't state output format. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

For the required query parameter, the description adds meaning by listing accepted identifier types (keyword, RSR stock #, UPC, MFG #), which is not in the schema. However, the optional limit parameter is not described at all, and schema coverage is 0%, so partial compensation.

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?

Explicitly states 'Search the RSR distributor CATALOG (not local stock)' with specific searchable identifiers, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like find_item (local stock) and promote_to_item (conversion).

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?

Directly advises 'Use find_item for items already in this store,' providing an explicit alternative. Also clarifies scope with 'not local stock,' leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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