lookup_fastener

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The one genuinely behavioral disclosure is that results are tier-gated (Free = warnings only, Pro = sizing/fit, etc.), but the rest is marketing copy; nothing is said about lookup failure behavior, how loose the name match is, or permissions.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but it is followed by a long pricing/upsell block and a tracking URL that do not help an agent decide or invoke correctly. Roughly three-quarters of the text is promotional rather than functional.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description should define the input key format and describe what a 'full spec' contains. Instead it spends its length on tier marketing, leaving the actual invocation contract unspecified.

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 required parameter 'name' is undocumented. The description only implies it identifies a screw/bolt/fastener and gives no expected format (e.g., 'M3x10'), which is critical for a lookup key and cannot be guessed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full spec for a screw, bolt, or threaded fastener'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from hardware-adjacent siblings like recommend_hardware_pocket, plan_hardware_insertion, or recommend_hole, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The tier listing implies some answers are gated, but it never says what an agent should do when it needs Pro-level sizing data and the account is on Free.

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