search_by_part_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed part information (pricing, availability, datasheets, specifications) and uses the verb 'search', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. This adequately conveys the behavior, though it could be more explicit about safety (e.g., confirming no 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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second providing additional behavioral detail. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool has an output schema (not shown but signaled) and only one parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the input expected, and the type of information returned (pricing, availability, datasheets, specifications). No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'part_number' described as 'Exact Mouser or manufacturer part number'. The description repeats this exact phrasing and adds that it performs an exact match search. While consistent, the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for a specific part by exact part number, differentiating it from the sibling 'search_by_keyword' which uses partial or keyword matching. The verb 'search' and resource 'part' are specific, and the phrase 'exact match' leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicitly says 'exact match search for a Mouser or manufacturer part number', which tells the agent to use this when an exact part number is available. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the differentiation from 'search_by_keyword' is clear from context.

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