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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return shape (hit records with metadata, snippet, opaque ref), the opaque-ref indirection to get_segments, and scope-restriction behavior. It does not mention ordering/pagination/errors, but for a search tool the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 efficient and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, how to chain to get_segments, when to prefer lookup, when to use search, and how to scope. The key purpose and return shape are front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return-value details beyond the hit-record/ref/segments flow. It covers purpose, return nature, alternatives, usage conditions, and parameter scoping. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why scope should be used (restrict hits to one part and avoid cross-part contamination) and by giving a concrete syntax example. It does not add much about q or k, but they are already well described in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Search the datasheet corpus; returns hit records (metadata + snippet, each with an opaque `ref`)." It clearly states what the tool produces and differentiates it from siblings like lookup and get_segments by describing the hit-record/snippet level of detail.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: prefer lookup when part numbers are known, use search when the part is unknown or for triage before pulling full content. It also explains exactly when to use the scope parameter with a concrete MPN example.

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