digikey_compare_parts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data context is covered. The description adds that it returns 'exact current details' (implying live, not cached data) and performs an 'attributed comparison,' but gives no detail on rate limits, auth, or return structure beyond what the output schema provides.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the basic action. However, for a comparison tool with an undocumented array parameter, it should clarify the expected product-number format and what 'attributed comparison' means, which it currently leaves vague.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the product_numbers array should contain 'two or more parts,' which adds a minimum-count constraint not present in the schema. However, it does not specify the expected identifier format (e.g., Digi-Key vs. manufacturer part number), leaving a key semantic gap.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('details for two or more parts'), and scope ('for an attributed comparison'). It distinguishes the tool from single-part siblings like digikey_get_part by requiring two or more parts, though it does not name any sibling 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 phrase 'for two or more parts for an attributed comparison' implies the use case (comparing multiple parts), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for choosing this over digikey_get_part or digikey_find_alternates.

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