lookup_cloud_parts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'lookup' implies a non-destructive read, which is the main behavioral inference available, but there is no mention of network dependency, latency, caching, or what happens for unknown part numbers.

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?

One front-loaded sentence names the purpose and source; the Args block is brief. Slightly redundant restatement of the single parameter, but nothing wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, this is close to sufficient. The main missing piece is guidance on local-vs-cloud selection against the many sibling part tools.

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 0%, so the description's 'part_numbers: Part numbers / MPNs to look up' does real work, clarifying that MPNs are acceptable and that multiple identifiers can be supplied. It stops short of specifying formats, case sensitivity, or array size limits.

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 (lookup) plus concrete resources (manufacturer pinouts, package footprints, datasheets) and a source (Binner Swarm cloud). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_parts or list_parts, which presumably serve the local inventory, so the agent must infer that 'cloud' is the distinguishing scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over get_parts/list_parts, no prerequisites, no note about behavior when a part is not found in the cloud. The agent must guess the routing between local and cloud lookups.

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