audit_find_visible_supplier_pn

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the exact match predicate (parameter name starts with 'supplier', case-insensitive, IsHidden=False) and the legacy/free-text variants it catches, plus a summary of the return shape. It never explicitly says it is read-only or side-effect free, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, then the rule rationale and detection logic, then the return shape. The middle 'Digi-Key re-bin' anecdote is more rhetorical than operational and could be trimmed, but it does explain why the rule matters and reads coherently.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the return dict ({checked, violations, items[]} with designator/parameter/value), and it explains the detection semantics and the remediation pairing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful scoping context (only schematic-visible parameters, case-insensitive prefix match) without needing per-parameter detail.

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 sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Find schematic components with a VISIBLE supplier-PN parameter.' It is unambiguous against siblings like audit_find_mpn_inconsistencies and audit_component_param_visibility because it names the exact artifact it hunts (supplier PN, not MPN) and whether it must be visible.

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 names the follow-up tool explicitly ('Pair with sch_set_components_parameters to hide them in bulk'), giving a concrete remediation path. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., does not check PCB-side or hidden params as a separate case), but the audit context is clear enough to select the tool correctly.

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