find_part_in_sets

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

Without annotations, the description adds behavioral context by stating results are sorted by quantity (most pieces first). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs, which would be expected for a tool with no 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the output format (e.g., returns set IDs or names). It mentions sorting but lacks detail on response structure. Still, it covers the core functionality.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds that color is optional and the purpose of the tool, but does not provide additional details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: finding LEGO sets containing a specific part, with optional color filter. It distinguishes from siblings like search_parts (which searches parts themselves) by specifying the use case of sourcing a brick.

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 a clear usage context: 'when a builder wants to know where to source a particular brick.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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