digikey_find_alternates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: results are 'unverified candidates', telling the agent not to treat them as validated. This is valuable context beyond structured fields.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It gets to the point immediately.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with low schema coverage and no usage guidance or parameter details, the description is minimal for a tool with a required input and a limit parameter.

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% and the description mentions no parameter details. It doesn't clarify the meaning or format of 'product_number' or what 'limit' controls. This leaves the agent guessing about input semantics.

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 verb (find) and resource (alternates) and names the source (DigiKey substitutions and recommendations). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like digikey_compare_parts or digikey_search_parts, leaving overlap that could confuse selection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'unverified candidates' implies caution but doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate over a validated alternative.

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