BOM Quality Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the report spans 'configured suppliers', hinting at an external/supplier-data dependency, but says nothing about whether live supplier queries occur, latency, or failures when no suppliers are configured.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the diagnostic categories trailing for scanning. It is efficient, though the five-item list is somewhat comma-heavy without indicating which checks are default-on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, an agent cannot determine the units or effect of minimum_quality_score or stale_vendor_data_seconds from either source, leaving a real gap before invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden. Its checklist ('missing-MPN', 'missing-footprint', 'low-stock items') implicitly maps to require_mpn, require_footprint, and low_stock_threshold, but minimum_quality_score and stale_vendor_data_seconds are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 ('Generate a BOM quality report') and enumerates the exact defect classes it surfaces (unavailable, single-source, missing-MPN, missing-footprint, low-stock). This separates it functionally from easyeda_bom_generate, easyeda_bom_export and easyeda_bom_validate, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 enumerated check categories imply when the tool is useful (pre-sourcing BOM audit), but there is no statement of when to prefer it over easyeda_bom_validate or easyeda_bom_sourcing, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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