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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine context the annotations don't: unit normalization across psi/bar, mm, °C, GHz, and an outline of the return payload (supplier, key specs, URL). It stops short of stating result limits or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the highest-value behavioral detail (unit handling) and the return shape. No 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return payload. It covers query semantics and unit interpretation well, but omits result-count/pagination behavior and confirmed_only semantics, which an agent would need for full confidence.

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 67% and the two documented parameters carry their own descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by clarifying that numeric specs are unit-aware and interchangeable, which the schema does not convey, though it says nothing about limit or confirmed_only.

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 (Find) and resource (parts) plus the retrieval dimension (keyword and/or numeric specification). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_suppliers and get_part.

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 through the query examples and the unit-handling note, which tells the agent this is the right tool for spec-based lookups. However, it never says when not to use it or when a sibling such as get_part (for a known part) would be preferable.

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