Search components by description

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a data-availability caveat, an explicit error condition ('rejects patterns that match all items'), and the domain quirk that `component_notes` names parts lacking an MPN. It stops short of describing the result shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose first, then caveats and alternatives — nothing is padding. The `component_notes` clause is a little cryptic out of context (it reads like a field name with no explanation of where it appears), costing a bit of clarity.

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 four-parameter, two-required search with no output schema, the description covers the fallback path, the failure mode, and one domain nuance, which is close to sufficient. The main remaining gap is that return contents are only obliquely referenced via `component_notes` and otherwise undocumented.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in structured fields, making 3 the baseline. The description goes slightly beyond by warning that overly broad `pattern` values are rejected, which tells the agent how to shape that argument rather than just its type.

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+resource ('Search for components by description pattern') and immediately differentiates itself from the refdes/mpn siblings by naming them as fallbacks. An agent can tell which of the three component-search tools applies without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (not all netlists carry description data) plus named alternatives for that case (search_components_by_refdes, search_components_by_mpn, asking the user for a BOM), and routes full-result needs to list_components. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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