Search components by refdes

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that identical components are grouped on MPN, description, comment and value together with the invariant that every reported field is true of every part. It also explains component_notes for MPN-less parts and a notes field on zero matches – substantive behavior an agent could not infer.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the key grouping behavior, then edge cases. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the grouped return shape, the component_notes field, and the zero-match notes field, so an agent knows what comes back. Complete for a read-only search 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds matching semantics ('case-insensitive') that inform how the pattern parameter behaves. The design/design_variant/include_dns parameters get their meaning from the schema alone, so no full compensation is needed.

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 refdes pattern') and differentiates from siblings search_components_by_mpn and search_components_by_description via the refdes key. An agent can select it without opening a 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?

Explicitly redirects to list_components for full results and states that match-all patterns are rejected, giving a clear when-not condition. It does not explicitly contrast with the mpn/description search siblings, though their names largely carry that, keeping this just short of a 5.

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