Get Registry Part

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds useful context about the content of the response (files, datasheet, license, provenance), going beyond the annotations. It does not disclose error conditions or pagination, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description covers the source of the id and the nature of the returned details. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, including the note that it comes from search_parts_registry. The description repeats this origin but adds no new semantic details about the parameter itself, so baseline 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 explicitly states 'Get full details for one registry part by id' and enumerates the included specifics (description, downloadable files, datasheet, license, provenance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_parts_registry and download_registry_part.

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 instructs to use the id returned by search_parts_registry, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list and the reference to the search tool make the usage context unambiguous.

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