Catalog Check

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and not open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is offline and deterministic, 'ok' is true only for 'stocked', and 'not_catalogued' is carefully framed as absence of evidence rather than unavailability. This goes well beyond the annotation signals.

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 dense but well organized: a one-line purpose, input guidance, then a structured enumeration of return codes with precise meanings. Every sentence contributes usable information, and the most important constraint ('ok is True only for stocked') is placed at the end as a crisp summary.

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, the description thoroughly explains the return shape: the code values, the meaning of 'nearest', the cut-to-length nuance, and the false-negative caveat. Even though a few tuple fields like 'fidelity' and 'market' are not individually defined, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its primary result.

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 provides no descriptions for the two parameters, so the description must carry the full burden. It does so clearly: 'designation' is explained with concrete examples, and 'handle' is tied to a part whose designation was stamped at generation time. The agent can understand both how to populate the parameters and how they relate.

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 question 'Is this exact part something you can buy off the shelf?' plus the detailed code semantics make the tool's purpose unmistakable: check stock availability for an exact standardized designation or generated handle. It also differentiates itself from the sibling catalog_search by explicitly contrasting 'not_catalogued' here with 'not_covered' there.

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 tells the agent exactly what inputs to pass and when the tool is the right choice: whenever an exact off-the-shelf availability question needs a deterministic answer. It also names a concrete alternative action for one outcome (check 'not_covered' from catalog_search), though it does not enumerate exclusions or compare against closely related siblings like catalog_nearest.

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