Find Component

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search-and-return behavior but does not disclose edge cases such as multiple matches, no matches, or match priority. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the purpose and return value. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 an output schema and supportive annotations, the description is largely sufficient for a simple read-only search tool. However, it omits behavior for ambiguous searches (e.g., both parameters provided, multiple matching components) and does not clarify that both parameters are optional. Still, it covers the core functionality.

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 provides 100% coverage of the two parameters (value and reference) with clear descriptions. The description restates these search keys but adds no extra semantics about combined usage, precedence, or optionality. 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 uses a specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('PCB component'), and clearly identifies search keys (reference designator or value) and return values (position and properties). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_component_properties or get_component_list.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching by reference or value) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention, for example, that get_component_properties might be more appropriate when a reference is already known, or that get_component_list lists all components.

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