designation_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden and does so: it discloses the exactness asymmetry (stamped parts exact, everything else a documented name heuristic), gives concrete examples ('Bracket' never flagged, 'M6Screw' is), and explains that ok=False means the BOM cannot be ordered as it stands.

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?

Front-loaded with the gate rule, then examples, then edge cases, then return shape — a sensible order with no repetition. Slightly long and includes a rhetorical aside ('once per revision') that is persuasive rather than operational.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the finding codes, so an agent knows what comes back. The gap is the undocumented `recursive` flag, which materially changes behavior for sub-assemblies.

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 there are 3 parameters. The description meaningfully disambiguates rows vs assembly and explains what each input represents, but it is silent on `recursive` (default true) and on the shape of a row object, so half the parameter surface remains undocumented in both places.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+condition: 'every purchased part on this assembly must be orderable.' It clearly separates this gate from neighbors like bom_extract (which extracts) and component_contract_check (a different contract), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

States when to run it ('before quoting or releasing a package') and why (sourcing work silently pushed onto a human once per revision). It also names the input alternative explicitly: 'Pass rows instead of assembly to check BOM rows you already hold.'

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