search_datasheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention that this likely performs a web search, whether results are cached, or any side effects. For a read tool, more transparency about the search behavior is expected.

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 very concise, using a single sentence with no wasted words. For a simple tool, this is appropriate. However, it could be slightly expanded to include the optional force_refresh parameter without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, any limitations (e.g., supported manufacturers), or the effect of force_refresh. The tool's complexity is low, but completeness is lacking.

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%, meaning all three parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it repeats 'manufacturer and part number' but does not clarify force_refresh). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: searching for a datasheet URL using manufacturer and part number. The verb 'search' is specific, and the resource 'datasheet URL' is precise. Sibling tools are all unrelated to datasheet lookup, so there is no confusion with alternatives.

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 implies usage when a datasheet URL is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if the datasheet is already known) or alternatives. No mention of caching behavior or the force_refresh parameter is provided.

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