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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful return-context by naming extracted specs and optional catalogue data such as datasheet URL and provenance, but it does not clarify how the optional record is controlled or what changes when it is omitted.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the core lookup and the optional return depth efficiently.

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?

There is no output schema and no schema parameter documentation, so the description should do more. It gives a good high-level sense of the return value, but omits required family semantics, manufacturer usage, and include_record behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for 4 parameters. It mentions MPN and the optional full catalogue record, but leaves the required family parameter and the optional manufacturer parameter completely unexplained, and does not state include_record's default or effect.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a single part looked up by MPN and states what it returns: extracted specs plus an optional full TAS catalogue record. It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling search/list tools by focusing on one known MPN, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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: use this when you already have a specific MPN and need its specs or catalogue record. The description does not state when not to use it or explicitly route the agent to search_parts, cross_reference, or other siblings.

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