factreason_component_spec

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Uses metered access' warns of cost, 'returns matches or suggestions' explains fuzzy behavior, and 'Confirm critical values against the manufacturer datasheet' provides a reliability caveat. This is substantial added value.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The first states purpose, the second provides usage instructions with precedence, and the third gives a cost and reliability warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists and the tool has only two well-documented parameters, the description fully covers purpose, usage, cost, return behavior, and a safety caveat. No critical information is missing for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: the precedence rule (partNumber takes precedence if both are supplied) and clarifies query as a free-text capability search, going beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and clearly identifies the resource: electronics component pin assignments, voltage range, package, and alternatives. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on API lifecycle, upgrades, and authentication.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: pass exact partNumber for a single component or use query for a capability search, with a clear precedence rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is so distinct that the intended context is obvious.

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