doc_facts

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

With readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive already in annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: the sheet is written once from the datasheet and verified against rendered pages (data provenance), and it discloses the no-sheet fallback path via a subagent. No pagination or size limits are mentioned, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, but the first is a dense run-on packing the row-by-row/page-number provenance into a long clause. The routing benefit ('cheapest answer') is buried in the middle rather than front-loaded, costing scannability.

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, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers what the sheet contains, its trustworthiness, and the no-sheet fallback, leaving little an agent must infer to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'part', 'find' and 'section' (including the regex example and the heading list). The description only indirectly echoes sections ('pins, limits, the values...'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific resource (a part's fact sheet) and enumerates its contents: pins, limits, values, recommended circuit, package. It also differentiates from siblings by naming doc_sections, doc_text and doc_page in the no-sheet fallback. It lacks a clean action verb (it reads as a noun phrase rather than 'returns the fact sheet'), which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 cheapest answer to a datasheet question' gives clear selection guidance for choosing this over the raw doc_* tools, and the fallback sentence explains what happens when no sheet exists. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g., when to prefer doc_text or doc_page directly for non-fact-sheet questions).

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