mrd

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it performs voltage-compatibility checking and transparently reports items that could not be counted due to missing vendor data. This gives the agent an honest picture of what the tool will and won't provide.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary function, enumerates specific outputs, adds the important limitation about unpublished vendor data, and closes with a concrete usage example. 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return values well: total mass, total steady-state power, per-item data interfaces, voltage-compatibility verdicts, and excluded items. It explains the integration with sibling tools and provides a realistic usage scenario. The parameter schema is complete, so no critical information 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 already documents both parameters fully, including the bus voltage supply-range check and the items array with id and qty. The description adds value by clarifying that product ids come from other tools and that bus voltage is 'your' power bus voltage, tying the parameters to the intended workflow. This goes slightly beyond the schema's plain definitions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: building an engineering budget for a component stack. It specifies the inputs (product ids, bus voltage) and outputs (mass, power, data interfaces, voltage verdicts, excluded items), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on budget assembly rather than component lookup or matching.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'assemble and sanity-check a subsystem' with a concrete example (3-4 reaction wheels for ADCS). It also implies the ids come from other tools, which routes the agent to the correct workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what data is included and how it is grouped, which helps the agent set expectations about the returned content.

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 a single dense sentence with multiple parenthetical enumerations. It is information-rich but reads as a run-on, and the long list of interface ports could be more scannable. The core purpose is front-loaded, which helps, but the structure is not as clean as it could be.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: full data details and property dictionary grouping by port. It covers likely use cases and value granularity. Minor omissions like pagination or response format are not critical for a read-only spec retrieval tool.

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 fully documents both parameters, category and confidence, including enums, defaults, and short descriptions (100% schema coverage). The description does not add parameter-level syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 what the tool returns: the full typed data layer for a component category, including every item, value, unit, bound, measurement condition, datasheet source page, and confidence. It conveys a read/retrieval purpose with strong specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like build_budget or match_components.

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 phrase 'for arbitrary comparison, budgeting or trade studies on your side' gives an implied usage context: call this when raw, complete data is needed for the user's own analysis. It does not explicitly state when to prefer siblings or when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are grouped into A (meets all), B (fails a named requirement with both figures quoted), and C (could fit, data missing), with verdicts citing the datasheet page. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret the response. No contradiction found.

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: purpose first, then the A/B/C grouping, then the omission guidance, and finally the category list. The category list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but serves as a convenient quick reference. 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?

For a tool with 63 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the A/B/C classification, datasheet citations, and the instruction to omit irrelevant parameters. It does not specify result ordering, pagination, or limits, but the core behavior is sufficiently covered given the rich schema and annotations.

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%, with each parameter described with units and allowed values (e.g., 'band: UHF|VHF|S|X|L|C|Ku|Ka'). The description adds only a general rule—omit parameters you do not care about—and repeats the category enum in prose. It contributes little beyond the schema, so baseline 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 defines a specific operation: reverse search over a typed spec layer, passing a category and engineering requirements, returning catalogued items grouped as A, B, or C. It names the resource and the output classification, clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like get_component_specs via the 'reverse search' framing.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to find components matching engineering requirements, with an explicit instruction to 'omit parameters you do not care about.' It also enumerates valid categories. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like build_budget or get_component_specs, so there are no stated when-not/alternatives.

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