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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context: refresh re-queries sellers and takes tens of seconds, which is a latency/cost disclosure the annotations cannot convey. It also describes the returned payload shape, useful since there is no output schema.

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 compact sentences: the first establishes what the BOM contains, the second front-loads the one caveat (refresh cost). It is dense but every clause contributes; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately carries the return-value burden by enumerating the line fields and totals. Combined with annotation coverage of the safety profile and a 100%-covered input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the absent when-to-use guidance leaves a real 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains tier, boards, refresh, and design_id in detail. The description reinforces the refresh semantics (sellers re-queried) but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names the resource (a live-priced BOM) and enumerates its contents concretely: references, value, footprint, chosen offer fields, alternatives, totals. An agent understands exactly what is returned. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings like consolidate_bom_basic or choose_bom_part, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond the design_id parameter, and no routing to alternatives such as choose_bom_part or consolidate_bom_basic. The only usage-flavored content is the refresh cost note, which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.

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