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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: pagination limit of 200 lines with cursor continuation, performance cost of enabling pricing, and the caveat that pricing may be partial or absent for obscure parts. It also states what the tool does not return (device pinouts). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the primary use case is first, followed by pagination behavior, pricing behavior, and then exclusions/alternatives. There is zero filler or repetition of schema fields. The most decision-relevant guidance is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with three parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all essential calling contexts: main purpose, pagination, optional pricing behavior, board discovery, and related tools for other intents. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 description needs little additional parameter explanation. It subtly reinforces the cursor usage ('pass the returned cursor for more') and references include_pricing's cost/availability trigger, but these are already covered in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('get a public board's BOM') and enumerates exactly what the BOM includes (reference designators, quantity, value, footprint, MPN, manufacturer, DNP, datasheet). It distinguishes itself from read_schematic by explicitly excluding pinouts and routing how-parts-connect questions to that sibling.

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 description opens with a clear when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks which parts a public board uses'). It gives explicit guidance for the include_pricing parameter (when cost/sourcing/availability is requested) and routes ambiguous board requests to search first. It also names read_schematic as the alternative for connectivity questions, covering when-not-to-use.

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