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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it returns stable catalog IDs and makes no AI model call, but it does not describe pagination behavior, empty-query behavior, or category filtering beyond what the schema implies.

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 two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause contributes: search scope, return data, sibling alternative, and read-only/no-model-call behavior.

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 annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for selection and basic invocation. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning category filtering or pagination semantics, but those are standard and partly represented in the schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains that the query string searches fields such as name, manufacturer, model, ID, subtitle, and chemistry, but it does not explain limit, offset, or category filtering behavior; the category enum is self-describing in the schema, but the description leaves the other parameters largely to inference.

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: searching Crimp's catalog for components. It also identifies searchable fields and explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_component, which handles terminals and full fields, so an agent can select between the two 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 gives a clear use case: search the catalog by identifying attributes. It explicitly names the alternative get_component and the condition for using it, namely when terminals or full component fields are needed.

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