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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses result ordering ('best first on the first limit'), how parts missing a limited figure are handled (named as not compared, never counted as matches), the refusal behavior for untraceable figures, and the 'caller-asserted' labelling that results receive when user_request is omitted. This is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and criteria, then behavior, then the constraint on inputs — a sensible order. The single dense paragraph repeats the 'only stated figures' rule that the schema already carries per-parameter, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: matching parts, best-first ordering, headline figures with datasheet pages, and the treatment of non-compared parts. Combined with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the 'only a limit your user stated' phrasing. The description still adds meaning beyond it by enumerating the usable limits (noise figure, gain, P1dB, Psat, OIP3, insertion loss) and, crucially, by explaining that ranking is driven by the first limit supplied.

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), resource (real parts in the validated catalog), and the exact selection criteria (part type, frequency, optional limits), so an agent knows this is spec-based search rather than MPN lookup. It explicitly contrasts with lookup_component_by_mpn by noting the results carry the same datasheet-page provenance that tool gives.

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?

Clear context is given: use it when the user has stated a spec (type + frequency + limits), and the rule 'Pass only figures your user stated; an untraceable one is refused' tells the agent how to populate limits. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling design tools (design_rf_chain, compare_rf_chains) or when lookup_component_by_mpn is the better call.

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