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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cached responses are dropped (a destructive action) and that doing so affects the quota of subsequent searches, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not mention undoability, but for a cache clear that is acceptable. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are provided.

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 two concise paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary action and then explaining the quota implication. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no required parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and quota behavior. There is nothing missing that an agent would need to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the 'source' parameter with 'Clear one source only; omit to clear everything' (100% schema coverage). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action (drop cached distributor responses) and the goal (force fresh stock and pricing). This is a distinct resource and action, and none of the sibling tools (search_parts, source_status, part_details) perform cache clearing, so it's easily differentiated 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 provides clear context that clearing the cache forces fresh data and makes subsequent searches consume real request budget, implying the tool should be used when fresh data is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: distributor part numbers only resolve at the issuing distributor, and results will normally come from that source alone. This is genuinely non-obvious and valuable. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error handling, but for a lookup tool with an output schema, this covers the main gotcha.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose; the second delivers a critical behavioral caveat. No filler, no repetition, and the purpose is front-loaded. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, 1 optional), the existence of an output schema, and the key distributor caveat being addressed, the description is functionally complete. It lacks only more explicit usage routing, which is covered under usage guidelines, but overall nothing essential is missing for safe invocation.

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%, and the schema already includes detailed descriptions for both parameters, including concrete examples for part_number (e.g., '296-1234-ND' for DigiKey) and the meaning of sources. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('look up one part by part number'), the resource ('part'), and the scope ('full specifications and pricing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools: search_parts is for searching, source_status is for status, and clear_cache is for cache management. No ambiguity.

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 hints at when to use this tool (when you have a specific part number) versus searching, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The distributor-resolution note gives behavioral context but not direct routing. Sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool reports configuration and budget, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly clarify that it has no side effects or mention any caveats (e.g., caching, staleness). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance immediately following. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage (empty object), so the description has nothing to add for parameters. Per calibration, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 ('Report') followed by the precise resource ('which distributors are configured and how much request budget is left'). It uniquely distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_parts or clear_cache, which clearly have different functions.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when a search reports a rate limit error'), making the intended context clear. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses the full when/when-not/alternatives structure that would merit a 5.

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