Get component details

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses concrete return shape, the two pin representation forms, the special 'NC' sentinel that is a marker rather than a queryable net, case-insensitive lookup semantics, and that errors carry guidance and suggestions. That is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively finer detail that each serves a purpose: the pin representation rules and NC sentinel are essential with no output schema, and the fallback guidance closes the loop. Dense but no filler sentences; a small readability cost from packing multiple rules into one run of prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values and it does so thoroughly, including the ambiguous pin-value cases an agent would otherwise mis-handle. Combined with the sibling fallback and error behavior, nothing needed to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including design_variant's variant-vs-default rule are already documented. The description nonetheless adds semantics the schema lacks: refdes lookup is case-insensitive. That is real added meaning, though it covers only one of the three parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full component details including all pin connections') and immediately scopes the content returned: MPN, description, value, pin-to-net mappings. It also names the sibling search_components_by_refdes for the not-found case, so the agent can distinguish lookup-by-known-refdes from search-by-unknown-refdes.

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?

Usage is clearly implied (you already have a refdes and want full detail) and the failure path is explicitly routed: 'If the refdes is not found, search_components_by_refdes finds it.' It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_components or search_components_by_description for the discovery case, so the when-not guidance is partial rather than complete.

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