get_specs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses that results come from a pre-extracted index, that absence of a part in `results` means no index coverage rather than absence in the datasheet, and that the tool issues a 'No specs found' warning. It also clarifies it does not read datasheet text, which is a key behavioral limitation.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it reads, when to prefer it, how to restrict output, and what absence means with fallback. The 'cheapest and most precise' phrasing is mildly promotional, but the overall structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: data source, content shape, cost/precision trait, optional filtering, missing-coverage semantics, and fallback routing. An agent has enough to correctly invoke it and interpret an empty result.

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 baseline is 3. The description does reinforce meaning by calling out 'canonical parameter names' and 'known IC part numbers,' but it mostly restates what the schema already explains (optional restriction, exact MPNs). It adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('canonical extracted specs ... from a pre-extracted parametric index'), which is clearly distinct from the datasheet-text source and from siblings like lookup. It also defines the spec contents (min/typ/max, unit, conditions), giving the agent a precise mental model of the tool's scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is the cheapest and most precise source for numeric parameters where it has coverage,' and explicit when-not-to-use by saying it is 'not from datasheet text.' It names the fallback alternative directly: 'fall back to `lookup` for that part,' so the agent is told exactly what to do when coverage is absent.

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