SheetsData MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that queries run in parallel, results are merged by MPN with indicative pricing/stock, and includes datasheet_status field to indicate availability for read_datasheet. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with zero waste: first sentence states purpose, second establishes priority, third explains parallel querying, fourth describes result format, fifth links to datasheet functionality, sixth provides usage examples, and seventh distinguishes from alternative. Every sentence adds value.

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 comprehensive annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, result structure, and relationship to other tools without needing to cover what's already in structured data.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about how the query parameter is used ('specific part numbers or keywords'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 electronic components by part number, description, or keyword, specifying it queries all configured providers in parallel and merges results by MPN. It distinguishes from sibling search_datasheets by noting this is for part-based discovery while that is for spec-based discovery.

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?

Explicitly states 'Start here — this is the best entry point for finding components' and provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Best with specific part numbers or keywords' and 'For spec-based discovery in natural language, use search_datasheets instead.' This gives clear alternatives and context.

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