lib_get_datasheet_url

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

With empty annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It does mention conditional availability ('when available'), but it does not explain what happens when no datasheet URL exists, whether it returns the first or all URLs, or if errors occur for invalid library/symbol names. The disclosure is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description plus schema gives a workable picture of the tool's core function, but it omits failure behavior and usage context. This is adequate but not rich for a tool with empty annotations.

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 must compensate. It only adds 'from the symbol library' as a loose clue, but it does not explain the expected format or relationship between 'library' and 'symbol_name'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to fill the schema's descriptive gap.

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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('datasheet URL from the symbol library'). The qualifier 'when available' adds useful scope. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the function's unique focus on datasheet URLs distinguishes it from other library tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lib_get_symbol_info or lib_search_symbols. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when it is appropriate, leaving the usage entirely implied.

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