Mouser Part Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the daily quota constraint (rate limiting) and batch lookup capability (pipe-delimited up to 10 numbers), which are not captured in annotations.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and usage guidance, the second adds behavioral constraints, then parameter and return sections provide essential details. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 complexity (cross-referencing with batch capability), the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints (quota), parameter semantics, and return value explanation. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than return format details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the part_number parameter's semantics: it accepts 'Mouser part number or manufacturer PN' with examples ('595-LM358P' or 'LM358P') and describes batch lookup syntax ('pipe-delimit up to 10 numbers'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Cross-reference a specific MPN on Mouser') and resource ('MPN'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'jlc_search' for general searches and 'digikey_get_part' for other distributors. It precisely defines the tool's scope as a targeted part lookup rather than general component searching.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Cross-reference a specific MPN') versus alternatives ('Use jlc_search first for general component searches'), naming a specific sibling tool. It also includes a daily quota constraint that informs usage frequency decisions.

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