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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint false, and the description adds pagination behavior (200 lines per call, pass cursor), slower response when include_pricing is enabled, and partial/missing pricing for obscure parts. These are useful behavioral disclosures that go beyond the 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?

The description is five compact sentences, front-loaded with the use case and output fields. Every sentence contributes: trigger, pagination, pricing mode, exclusions, and sibling routing, with no promotional or redundant filler.

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, 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers trigger, board resolution, pagination, pricing-mode behavior/trade-offs, exclusions, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly or avoid confusing it with related tools 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is richly described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concrete pagination limit of 200 lines and reinforces that the cursor should come from a previous call, which is slightly more than the schema's generic 'pass to fetch the next page'.

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 opens with a concrete trigger—'user asks which parts a public board uses'—and enumerates the returned BOM fields (reference designators, quantity, value, footprint, MPN, manufacturer, DNP, datasheet). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by declaring 'No device pinouts' and routing read_schematic/read_pcb usage to their own domains.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use get_bom, when to pass include_pricing (cost/sourcing/availability questions), and to search first if the board is unknown. It explicitly names read_schematic and read_pcb as the alternatives for schematic wiring and copper vias/pads, so there is no ambiguity about tool selection.

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