audit_find_missing_datasheets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the exact Altium slots checked, defines the coverage rule (http(s):// value required), and explains the read-only audit nature implicitly through 'find/audit' semantics. It omits explicit read-only declaration but the behavior is otherwise well disclosed.

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 key statement is front-loaded and the slot list plus coverage rule earn their place, but the rationale paragraph and the 'Pattern: ports the dashboard's pickDatasheetLinks heuristic' meta-note are somewhat verbose for what an agent needs to invoke the tool.

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 0-param, output-schema-backed audit, the description is complete: it defines selection scope, coverage criteria, and even summarizes the return dict, leaving nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing to clarify at the parameter level; the description appropriately focuses on the covered slots and return shape instead.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource with a precise scope: 'Find ICs (designator U*) with no fetchable datasheet URL in any of their parameters.' An agent knows exactly what this audits and can distinguish it from generic datasheet tools like datasheet_fetch or design_datasheet_checklist.

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 clear context for why and when to run it (the review discipline requires a stored URL before device-related claims) but does not explicitly name alternatives such as design_datasheet_checklist or datasheet_fetch, nor state exclusions.

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