digikey_validate_bom

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'validates' and 'returns' results, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., file saving via output_dir/saved_path) or whether it modifies state. The absence of such details reduces transparency.

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 sentence containing multiple validation aspects, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be split into clear sections (e.g., 'Validates... Returns...') to improve readability without adding length.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description fails to explain parameters, usage context, or behavioral traits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for effective agent decision-making.

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%, and the description provides no information about parameters (bom, mode, output_dir, saved_path). All four parameters are undocumented, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The description adds zero value 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 uses specific verbs and resource: 'Validate BOM evidence, identifiers, freshness, duplicate lines, quantities, and engineering/interface consistency'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like digikey_build_electronics_bom (creation), digikey_compare_candidates (comparison), digikey_refine_bom (refinement), etc.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. Users must infer usage from the name and description.

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