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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape — catalog ids, interfaces, pin roles, and kit orderability — which matters since no output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contents. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the examples earn their space by disambiguating the query format.

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 telling the agent what comes back. The main residual gap is not pointing to get_part / get_part_pins for full part detail or pin-level expansion after a search.

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 75% and documents query, role, and availability directly (including the enum meaning). The description's illustrative query examples add mild interpretive value, but it says nothing about limit or the default/max behavior, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 (searches) and resource (EasyCircuit electronics parts catalog), plus the search axes (name, function, role) with concrete examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_part or catalog_summary, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples ('OLED display', 'temperature sensor') and by the query-by-what-the-part-does framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_part (lookup by id) or catalog_summary (overview). The agent must infer the routing.

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