find_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it lists the fields returned per fact, warns that facts are not authoritative and must be checked against the source, and explains the non-obvious lookup behavior where a concrete MPN also surfaces its datasheet's facts. It never states rate limits or pagination, but the behavioral core is well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling reference, then the part/base-part nuance, then the output shape, then the verification caveat — a sensible ordering with no filler. The fourth sentence is a little dense, but every sentence adds information.

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 unannotated, zero-required-parameter search tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description supplies everything needed: scope, inheritance behavior, per-fact return fields, and the follow-up verification step. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by adding semantics the schema does not: that 'part' also searches the base part and that a concrete MPN pulls in datasheet facts. Query and document semantics are left to the schema, which already documents them thoroughly.

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 specific verb and resource ('Find values that were read before'), names the sibling that creates them (save_fact), and distinguishes itself from raw-text searching by explaining that it searches saved facts across a part and its base part. An agent can tell what it retrieves 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?

Gives a clear usage context (retrieving previously recorded facts, with or without a part filter) and closes with a workflow directive: verify important values against the original, then set state via set_fact_status. It does not explicitly say when to prefer search_text over find_facts, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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