search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the tool queries keyless sources, clarifies scope (existence/canonical naming), and acknowledges partial coverage. However, it omits details like result format or pagination, though an output schema exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search electronic component information'), and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 output schema and simple parameters, the description provides sufficient context about purpose and limitations, but the lack of parameter guidance slightly reduces completeness.

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 schema documents query (string, required) and limit (integer, default 10) but with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on acceptable query formats, how limit behaves, or what constitutes a good query, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search electronic component information') and names two concrete source types (Internet Archive databooks, KiCad symbol libraries), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_papers and search_code.

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?

It explicitly states a coverage limitation ('No keyless commercial parts API exists, so coverage is partial') and directs users to an alternative for practical discussion ('for practical component discussion also try search_trends'), which is strong when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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