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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance context ('whether each fact is physically verified'), but says nothing about empty results, unresolved part names, or how limit/offset pagination affects the response.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 does the necessary work of enumerating return fields including the verification flag, which is the key non-obvious payload detail. Remaining gaps are pagination behavior and no-match handling, which are minor for a read-only lookup 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 coverage is only 33% — query is documented, but limit and offset are undocumented in both schema and description. The description reinforces the exactness constraint on query ('exact part'), which adds some value, but it does not compensate for the missing pagination semantics.

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 ('returns the electrical capabilities of an exact part') and enumerates the payload fields (pin roles, drive type, voltage ranges, terminals, protocols). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'exact' and electrical capability data, though pin-related overlap with get_part_pins is left implicit.

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?

The word 'exact' implicitly routes the agent here for known part identifiers rather than search_parts, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_part, get_part_pins, or search_parts, and no mention of what happens if the exact name does not resolve.

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