Search Parts

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: queries run in parallel across three providers, results are merged by MPN, eval boards/kits are split out as related_kits for MPN queries, and private-library matches are appended with source='private_library'. That is exactly the kind of pre-call context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the cheapest signal ('Free. Start here.') and then builds from core behavior to return shape to routing. The datasheet_status mapping is dense but each mapping earns its place; the trailing 'Full list in the server instructions' is the only mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description carries the full burden, describing merged-by-MPN results with per-source price and stock, datasheet_status, related_kits and private_library entries with tags. Combined with the status-to-tool routing table, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the response.

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%, with limit, query and providers all documented including the 3× multiplier caveat for providers='all'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; it does implicitly hint that private-library results are appended regardless of the provider selection.

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 ('Searches components by part number or keyword') plus the exact scope (JLCPCB, Mouser, DigiKey, in parallel). It explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling: 'For spec-based discovery in plain language, use search_datasheets,' so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

'Free. Start here.' gives an explicit entry-point recommendation, and the description names the alternative (search_datasheets) with the condition that selects it (spec-based plain-language discovery). It further routes downstream work: poll check_extraction_status, prefetch_datasheets, request_datasheet_upload, each keyed to a concrete datasheet_status value.

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