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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output shape (PinoutEvidence document), the presence of a review-state, and the specific condition under which human review is required (e.g., no pins recovered or warnings raised). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for an extraction tool this is sufficient and adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose stated first and then the output contract and usage guidance following. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content. It is dense but well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the return value is (PinoutEvidence document), what it contains (canonical pins, special pads, names/types/functions), and how to interpret it (review.required flag). It also gives usage guidance and connects to the datasheet PDF context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, but it also does not need to. It provides domain context by explaining that the extraction is from a datasheet PDF for a component.

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 ('Extract'), a specific resource ('a component's pin/pad table from a datasheet PDF'), and clarifies the unique value proposition ('verifiable, provenance-tracked evidence — not raw PDF text to re-interpret'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic PDF-reading tools and sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over reading the PDF yourself', giving the agent a clear directive on when to use this tool. It also instructs the agent to 'trust review.required before acting on the pins'. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of them.

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