match_bom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (returns best matches with prices and affiliate links) but lacks details on edge cases like no matches found, partial matching, or any side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two sentences fully convey the tool's purpose and output with zero filler. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of the return format (best matches, prices, affiliate links). It covers the essential context for a matching tool, though it could detail what 'best match' means or how multiple networks are handled.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that items are a list of components/parts and that output includes prices and links, but it does not clarify network or marketplace specifics beyond the 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 tool's function: matching a Bill of Materials against affiliate product catalogs and returning best matches with prices and links. The verb 'Match' and resource 'Bill of Materials' distinguish it from sibling tools like search_products, which likely handles single product queries.

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 phrase 'Ideal for project material lists' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It implies multi-item input scenarios but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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