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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are restricted to in-stock items and that pricing is quantity-dependent, but it says nothing about latency, external supplier lookups, or whether results are cached/limit-capped. The live Mouser/DigiKey check behavior is documented only in the schema's query field, not here.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the search capability and followed by the return summary. No hedging, no boilerplate, every clause carries information.

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 an 11-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and 91% schema description coverage, the description covers the essential what-and-what-returns. It leaves the caller to the schema for filter semantics and doesn't address result limits or fallback behavior, minor gaps given the rich structured fields.

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 91%, so the schema already explains qty, sort, limit, filters, package, category, min_stock, and manufacturer in detail. The description maps loosely onto query/category/package/filters and clarifies that price is at the requested quantity, but it adds no syntax, units, or defaults beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search') plus the resource ('in-stock electronic components') and enumerates the search axes (part number, words, category, package, electrical specs). It also names what comes back (stock, unit price at quantity, specs, footprint availability), so the agent knows this is a discovery/lookup tool. It never names a sibling (get_part, find_alternatives) to sharpen the boundary, keeping it below a 5.

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 'in-stock' framing implies this is for discovering available parts rather than retrieving a known part, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from get_part (single-part fetch) or find_alternatives (substitution search), even though those are the obvious alternatives in the sibling set.

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