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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful content-level transparency by stating the tool returns reference builds with their roles and candidate parts. It does not discuss ranking or logging, but those are captured in the parameter 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core resource, provides concrete examples, states what is returned, and ties the tool to the BOM workflow. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, what the content is, and where it fits in the larger build_bom process.

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 for the single optional parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail; it focuses on the resource and output contents, which is sufficient given the schema already documents project_context thoroughly.

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 a specific resource ('catalogue's reference builds'), enumerates examples (robot, weather station, plant waterer), and specifies the result contents ('roles and candidate parts'). It also explicitly links the tool to the build_bom workflow, distinguishing it from sibling part/category tools.

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 clearly positions this tool as 'the starting point for build_bom', giving the agent an actionable context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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