search_parts

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

No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description — and it delivers. It discloses aggregation (merges offers by part number), default scope (every configured distributor), and importantly the partial-failure semantics (a failing or quota-exhausted distributor still yields results from others, with the failure surfaced under errors). These are non-obvious behaviors not visible in the schema. No contradictions exist since no annotations were declared.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then merge behavior, then source-scoping and failure tolerance. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information with no padding or repetition. Minor nit — 'electronic components' is slightly generic — but overall the structure is efficient and well-ordered.

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?

For an 8-parameter multi-distributor tool with a 100%-coverage schema and an output schema present, the definition is largely complete: it covers default behaviors, the sources override, quantity/limit context, and edge-case handling. The one genuine gap is sibling routing — when the keyword is an exact part number, an agent may need guidance that part_details is the better fit. Minor given the overall richness.

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 coverage is 100% — every one of the 8 parameters already carries a descriptive schema entry (limit, merge, keyword, sources, quantity, manufacturer, in_stock_only, include_specs). Baseline is therefore 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the sources override and the merge default, but it does not compensate beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource set: 'Search DigiKey, LCSC and Mouser for electronic components.' This is precise and clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings — source_status checks health, part_details fetches a single part, clear_cache manages cache. An agent can tell this is the multi-distributor search tool without opening the 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?

The description thoroughly explains the tool's own operating behavior: default all-sources search, merging of same-part offers, the `sources` override, and failure tolerance. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it. Critically, since the `keyword` field accepts a part number, an agent could be torn between search_parts and part_details, and nothing here routes that choice. Context is strong, but explicit exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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