List Mouser manufacturers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: substring matching is case-insensitive and the response is capped at 200 names, which the agent cannot learn from annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the resource and its consumer come first, then the filtering and truncation facts. Nothing is redundant and the truncation limit is placed where it is most actionable.

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, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers lookup semantics and result caps. The one loose end is what to do when the 200-name cap is hit — no hint that a narrower query is the remedy — but for a single-optional-parameter lookup tool this is close to complete.

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 0% and the single query parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, specifying case-insensitive substring filtering. It does not explicitly state that query is optional or what happens when it is omitted, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 names the specific resource (Mouser manufacturer names) and its role: supplying the manufacturer argument of search_parts and get_parts. That immediately separates it from the sibling listing tools (list_countries, list_currencies) and from the search tools themselves.

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?

It states the exact downstream use case, so an agent knows to call this before search_parts/get_parts when it lacks a valid manufacturer string. There are no plausible alternative tools for this lookup, so the absence of explicit when-not guidance is a minor gap rather than a deficiency.

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