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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: that hits contain opaque refs, that refs are passed to `get_segments` for full content, and that part-specific scoping prevents cross-part contamination. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-backed tools without being redundant.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the main purpose and return shape come first, followed by routing guidance and a scoping example. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes actionable information, and the length is justified by the tool's role in a workflow. Minor redundancy with the schema's scope description prevents a 5.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what results look like, how to proceed to full content (get_segments), when to choose the alternative (lookup), and how to restrict scope. The workflow is fully described without needing return-value details because the output schema exists.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema: the `q` example and the `scope='device:NE5532'` instruction are already present in the input schema's property descriptions. No additional semantics are introduced, so a 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the datasheet corpus' and explicitly describes the return shape (hit records with metadata, snippet, and opaque ref). It distinguishes from the sibling `lookup` by clarifying that `lookup` is preferred when part numbers are known. An agent can tell this apart from all sibling tools 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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'prefer `lookup`' when part numbers are known, and 'Use `search` when the part is unknown, or to triage snippets'. It also provides concrete scoping advice (scope='device:<MPN>') to avoid cross-part contamination. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance that agents need.

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