Check BOM

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is low, yet the description adds substantial operational context: a 2¢ per-call cost, duplicate-MPN quantity aggregation, the data sources used (exact identities, catalogue snapshots, distributor details), and epistemic caveats that 'unknown remains unknown' and single_source does not prove exclusivity.

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?

Cost is front-loaded, followed immediately by the checked dimensions, then input formats, then output-format behavior. Sentences are terse with no filler; even short clauses like 'No extraction.' carry exclusions rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still covers return shape (compact columns/rows by default vs verbose objects), input limits, accepted identifiers, aggregation behavior, data provenance, and cost. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that the mpn field accepts either MPNs or LCSC numbers, that duplicate MPNs aggregate quantities, and that verbose returns objects vs default compact columns/rows. It omits the qty bounds and the 20-item minimum (schema minItems=1), leaving minor gaps.

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 (check BOM lines) plus the exact scope of what is checked: lifecycle, stock vs quantity, single-distributor sourcing, datasheet status, stale/missing prices. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_design_fit, find_alternative, or check_extraction_status.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it operates on up to 20 BOM lines, accepts MPNs or LCSC numbers, and explicitly excludes extraction ('No extraction.'), routing that need elsewhere. It never names a sibling alternative (e.g. find_alternative for substitutions) or states when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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