Designation Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which match the description's read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the exact/name-heuristic purchased-ness logic, the specific examples ('Bracket' vs 'M6Screw'), and the return structure. It does not contradict 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?

The description is information-dense and well-structured. It opens with the gate statement, then explains the flagging logic, the purchased-ness heuristic, and the return format—all in a logical order. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler. It's longer than typical but every part 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 there is no output schema, the description fully describes the return value: '{ok, findings, purchased, designated, undesignated, incomplete, basis}' and details each finding's fields and possible codes. It also explains the meaning of ok=False. For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is a complete description that leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the difference between rows and assembly ('Pass rows instead of assembly to check BOM rows you already hold') but does not explain the 'recursive' parameter or its default behavior. It provides partial parameter semantics but leaves a gap for one of the three parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('flags') and resource ('BOM rows'), and opens with the gate condition 'every purchased part on this assembly must be orderable.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's role as a pre-quote/pre-release check, separating it from related tools like catalog_check or substitutability_check without needing to name them explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run it before quoting or releasing a package.' Also gives input-selection guidance: 'Pass rows instead of assembly to check BOM rows you already hold.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent making a decision.

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