Filter enclosures

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description's real contribution is the domain caveat that listed dimensions are OUTER dimensions and usable inner space is smaller — a genuinely useful trap-avoidance detail. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior beyond what the sort/limit/offset schema already implies.

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?

Front-loaded with a scannable facet summary, followed by workflow advice and the outer-vs-inner warning in the order an agent needs them. Three sentences, essentially no filler; the only inefficiency is repeating 'check the drawing' twice in slightly different phrasing.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need no explanation. However, with nine optional parameters and the sibling search_enclosures left undifferentiated, the definition leaves an agent without a rule for choosing between search tools or for setting sort/limit/offset meaningfully.

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 78%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for min_outer_mm (use it with your PCB/contents size as a first pass) and clarifies that all dimensions are outer mm, which the schema does not say. It adds nothing for sort, limit, offset, query, or the min_ip pattern beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and facet list: 'Parametric search: outer size limits, minimum IP rating, material and category', which maps directly onto min_outer_mm/max_outer_mm, min_ip, materials and category. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_enclosures, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which search variant to pick.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: start with min_outer_mm against PCB/contents size, then verify inner space and check the drawing via get_cad_files before committing. It names an alternative tool and the reason to follow up with it, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over search_enclosures.

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