lib_search_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context with 'live' (implying real-time/online sources) and 'purchasable' (implying availability/commercial relevance), but does not disclose return format, filtering behavior, or pagination.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently and earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safe annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support tool selection and invocation. It lacks parameter details, usage context, and behavior beyond the most basic intent, making it incomplete for a 6-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely implies keyword-based searching. It does not explain source, package, sort_by, min_stock, or only_basic parameters, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('live component sources for purchasable parts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lib_search_symbols and lib_search_footprints by emphasizing 'purchasable parts' and live sources, which aligns with its component search purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as lib_check_stock_availability or lib_find_alternative_parts. The description implies a general search use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios.

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