product_db

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does declare read-only and names the DB location and how to obtain it, which is valuable. It stops short of describing table enumeration, behavior when the DB is missing, or result shape/pagination for large dumps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the DB-location/prerequisite detail following. No wasted text, though the second sentence could be slightly more explicit about what the agent must do.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of the burden. It covers the source and read-only nature but omits how to discover valid table names and what a dump returns, which matters for an all-optional-parameter database 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the 'table dump' and 'substring search' concepts but adds no format, naming, or discovery guidance (e.g., which table names are valid), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (query the parametric MCU-finder database) and clarifies it is the data behind the product selector, plus that it is read-only. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mcu_search or catalog_index, which likely surface similar data, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives one useful operational prerequisite (the DB is downloaded by CubeMX to ~/.stmcufinder, obtain via swmgr/GUI refresh), which implies when the tool can be used. However, it never says when to prefer this raw table/search tool over mcu_search, catalog_index, or mcu_info, leaving selection to inference.

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