CSE Search (ECAD Models)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the slow response time ('up to 45s response time'), clarifies that no API key is required, and specifies the return format (list of parts with detailed fields). Annotations cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints, but the description enriches this with practical constraints and output details, providing full transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose and key guidelines, followed by parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys essential information in a well-structured manner, making it easy to parse and apply.

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 complexity (search with performance constraints) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameters, and returns, ensuring the agent has all necessary context without needing to rely solely on structured fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' is defined as 'MPN or keyword' with examples, and 'limit' specifies the range and default. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., query syntax) more fully to reach a perfect 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search SamacSys ComponentSearchEngine') and resource ('ECAD model availability and datasheets'), distinguishing it from siblings by specifying its focus on ECAD models rather than general part search or other functions. It explicitly mentions the target formats (KiCad/Eagle/Altium symbols, footprints, and 3D models), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you specifically need ECAD model availability or datasheets from ComponentSearchEngine') and when not to use it ('For general part search, use jlc_search instead. For EasyEDA footprint availability, use jlc_get_part'). It names specific alternative tools, offering clear context and exclusions for proper tool selection.

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