Standard Parts: Catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: rows are transcribed from the named standard, carry source, coverage is deliberately narrow, and unknown standards are refused with the catalogue-standard list. It does not cover pagination or filter-combination behavior, but with annotations and an output schema the disclosure is strong.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and contains specific, non-repetitive detail, but it runs long for a two-parameter read-only list tool and spends several sentences on output/provenance details such as null transcriber/reviewer and DIN tables with no rows. Those details are useful background but not all necessary for selecting or invoking 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 read-only catalogue tool with full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and readOnlyHint, the definition supplies enough context about coverage, provenance, and refusal behavior to call it correctly. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance versus sibling lookup and insert 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query and standard, including examples and the allowed standard values. The description adds coverage ranges and refusal semantics for standard, but says little about query beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence identifies the resource as catalogue rows with dimensions and provenance, and later sentences distinguish it from std_part_insert, which refuses out-of-table sizes, and std_feature_draw, which reads feature tables. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name/title rather than stated directly, so the purpose is clear but not maximally front-loaded.

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 gives coverage constraints and explains that std_part_insert refuses sizes outside the tables, which implies this tool is the lookup path. However, it never explicitly says 'use this tool before std_part_insert' or when to prefer it over siblings such as arch_catalogue_list or mech_part_from_spec, so usage is inferable rather than stated.

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