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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: absence from results means no index coverage, not that the datasheet lacks the parameter, and a 'No specs found' warning is emitted. It also clarifies the source is a pre-extracted index, not raw datasheet text, which shapes agent expectations about result semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and source distinction before giving usage guidance and caveats. Every sentence contributes necessary information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations already convey read-only and open-world behavior, the description covers the remaining operational context: when to use the tool, what absence means, and which sibling to fall back to. The agent has enough information to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including family fallback and canonical names. The description adds only light context by mentioning canonical parameter names and optional restriction, but does not substantially improve on the schema.

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 and resource: it reads canonical extracted specs for known IC part numbers from a pre-extracted parametric index. It explicitly differentiates itself from datasheet text and names lookup as the fallback, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 this is the cheapest and most precise source for numeric parameters where it has coverage, and gives a clear fallback instruction to use lookup when a part is absent from results. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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