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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by asserting the data-quality guarantee that every returned attribute was corroborated against a manufacturer datasheet or vendor page, which tells the agent how much to trust results.

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 the core action and available filters front-loaded. The provenance sentence is slightly promotional but does carry the trust information noted above, so it largely earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations handle safety. What is missing is the ranking behavior (results are ordered for the supplied project context) and the default/pagination semantics of 'limit', both central to a search tool.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does cover three of the six parameters (category, build, role) as filters. It adds nothing about 'limit' behavior or how 'project_context' re-ranks results beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full-text search over ... provenance-backed part records') and names the dimensions it filters on, which separates it from get_part and compare_parts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool literally named 'search', leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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?

'Filter by category, build or role' describes capability rather than when to reach for this tool instead of get_part (known part id) or compare_parts (comparison). Usage is inferable from the verb but no alternative is named and no exclusions are given.

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