Datasheet oku

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable output-shape context beyond that: tables come back as plain text while figures and diagrams are silently omitted, which prevents an agent from expecting graphical content. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or what happens when text exceeds max_chars.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the workflow and then the output caveat. Every sentence carries information; the example search keywords are useful rather than filler. Minor length is added by the content-type enumeration, but it earns its place.

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 six optional parameters, the description does the necessary work: it explains the search/page workflow and discloses that tables are text and figures are excluded. The absence of any note on error behavior (bad URL, unscrapable PDF, product not found) is the main remaining gap for an open-world 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 each of the six parameters is already documented with type, range, enum, and examples. The description adds only the search-then-pages sequencing, which is light but genuine value. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Extract text from a product's datasheet PDF') and enumerates the content types an agent can expect (pinouts, absolute maximum ratings, electrical characteristics, package dimensions), which makes the tool's role unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'download_datasheet', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: call with 'search' first using terms like 'pin configuration' or 'thermal', then use 'pages' to read the located range. That is a clear recommended workflow with example inputs. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool versus download_datasheet or get_product.

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