project_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that calls hit enabled distributors' official APIs, that output is one line per part plus warnings for specific failure conditions, and that missing-API-key notes may appear (implying auth/configuration dependencies). It still omits failure modes, latency, and what happens when no distributor is enabled.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output shape and then the user-relay instruction. Four sentences, all informative; the closing sentence is an instruction rather than description but still earns its place by specifying how to surface warnings and key notes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be re-explained, yet the description helpfully summarizes it (one line per part, warning categories). For a single-optional-param read/report tool this is close to complete; only edge cases (no distributors enabled, API failures) are left unaddressed.

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% for the single 'path' parameter including the datasheet-lens.toml lookup rule, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the path argument; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope: lifecycle state plus stock for each part of the user project at enabled distributors, with per-part warnings for obsolete/discontinued/missing/out-of-stock items. This is clearly distinct from siblings like distributor_status, part_links, or project_check, though the phrasing is a noun clause rather than a verb-first statement.

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?

Usage is implied ('the user project', enabled distributors) but the description never says when to pick this over distributor_status or project_check, nor any prerequisites such as needing configured distributors. The only explicit routing is a parenthetical pointer to search_distributors for API-key notes.

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