digikey_compare_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It states the tool 'show verified facts and trade-offs without claiming a user-dependent objective winner,' which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words or 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 the complexity of the input schema (nested objects like Candidate, Evidence, Requirement) and the absence of parameter descriptions, the tool is inadequately specified for an AI agent to construct valid arguments. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing input guidance.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters (mode, candidates, identifiers, requirements) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, their structure (e.g., how to specify candidates or requirements), or their relationship to each other. The agent cannot determine how to populate the arguments.

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 action ('Compare candidate DKPNs against explicit requirements') and its output ('show verified facts and trade-offs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., search, get details) by focusing on comparison. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., digikey_search_parts, digikey_get_part_details). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating the appropriate scenario for using this comparison tool.

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