icboms_search_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only states the search action without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a search tool, the absence of any statement about non-mutating behavior or result handling leaves the agent without critical operational context.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the search criteria. There is zero redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose but omits any indication of result shape, pagination, or behavior when no matches are found. While not as critical as for a mutation tool, the absence of these details prevents the agent from fully anticipating the tool's response, especially given the lack of an output_schema to compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both query and limit are documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by MPN or keyword' mirrors the query schema description and adds no additional semantics. It does not explain limit behavior beyond what the schema already states (e.g., max, default). Since coverage is high, the 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('electronic components... across the ICBOMS catalog') with precise categories (microcontrollers, semiconductors, passives) and search criteria (MPN or keyword). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like icboms_get_product_facts (retrieve facts) and icboms_compare_parts (comparison), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool (any time you need to find components by MPN or keyword), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative rounting are provided, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between searching and subsequent actions like retrieving facts or comparing.

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