lib_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a ~30-second one-time index build on first use, incremental refresh of only changed libraries, and result ordering (exact and prefix name matches first).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope and scale, then ranking, then the latency caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description closes the remaining notable gaps (latency, refresh behavior, relevance ordering), leaving only the kind/limit parameters 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 description coverage is 50%: query and project_path are documented, while kind and limit are not explained in the description at all (kind's enum and limit's bounds are only implicitly self-documenting). The description's note that matching spans name/description/keywords and its ranking rule partially duplicate the query schema text rather than compensating for the undocumented parameters.

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 every symbol and footprint library') with concrete scale (22,000 symbols / 15,000 footprints) and the indexed fields (name, description, keywords). Clear on its own, but it never names or distinguishes itself from near-neighbors like parts_search or lib_fetch, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The presence of parts_search and lib_fetch in the sibling list makes this omission costly, since the agent has to guess which search entry point applies.

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