Search component library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention that results are limited/paginated, no note that the lookup goes to an external catalog (which the timeoutMs parameter hints at), and no indication of what a result contains. For a network-backed search with no output schema, this leaves real gaps.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant preamble; the verb and searchable identifier types come first. It is arguably too terse for the tool's scope, but nothing in it wastes the reader's time.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the definition should at minimum explain the limit/timeout parameters and what a returned catalog entry looks like (part number, stock, package, price). None of that is present, so an agent can call it but cannot predict the response shape or tune result size meaningfully.

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 33%: only 'query' is documented, and the description's restatement (keyword, LCSC part number, manufacturer part number) largely duplicates the schema's own text while omitting the manufacturer-PN form the schema lacks. Neither 'limit' (default 20, max 100) nor 'timeoutMs' (default 30s, max 120s) is explained, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 and resource ("Searches the EasyEDA / LCSC component catalog") and enumerates the three accepted identifier types, which separates it in spirit from schematic-side siblings like easyeda_find_component or easyeda_list_schematic_components. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the catalog-vs-schematic distinction must be inferred from the word 'catalog'.

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?

Usage is implied: search the part catalog when you need a component by keyword or part number. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over easyeda_find_component, easyeda_get_device_details, or easyeda_compare_devices, and no note that a search should precede part selection.

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