Find electrical component

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include function, type, manufacturer part number, location, and drawing sheet, and that cables are also searched. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how matching works, or how the limit parameter affects results, leaving material behavioral details uncovered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main lookup operation comes first, then the accepted query forms, the returned fields, and the cable caveat. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and the important cable-search detail. It is nearly complete for a simple lookup tool, but omits any explanation of the limit parameter or matching behavior.

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 only 50%, so the description adds important meaning for the required query parameter by explaining that it accepts designators, type numbers, manufacturer names, or function words and giving concrete examples. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, which prevents a higher score.

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: look up an electrical component of the cutting table. The examples of designators, type numbers, manufacturer, and function words make the scope concrete, and the mention of cables clarifies coverage. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as search_parts or search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 makes clear how to query the tool through designators, type numbers, manufacturer, or function words, which implies the intended usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direction to alternatives such as search_parts when this tool is not appropriate.

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