Fritzing Search Parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return row format ('moduleId title [family] (source)'), the scope of the corpus, and a mandatory downstream call before wiring. It does not state read-only semantics or behavior when the query matches nothing, but a search tool's safety profile is self-evident.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with the corpus size and the next-step instruction each earning their place. 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-value explanation is not required, and the description still sketches the row shape. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented limit/verbose parameters, which leaves result-volume control ambiguous.

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 coverage is only 33% – only 'query' is documented in the schema, and limit (default 40) and verbose (default false) are undocumented everywhere. The description adds no meaning for limit or verbose despite the coverage gap, so an agent must guess at result-set sizing and verbosity behavior.

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 (Search) and resource (Fritzing parts library), quantifies scope (2663 core parts + local custom parts), and returns a named result row shape. An agent can distinguish it from fritzing_part_connectors and fritzing_validate_part without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the next step: 'Call fritzing_part_connectors with a result's moduleId before wiring it.' That is real when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when to skip search (e.g. when a moduleId is already known) or discuss the limit parameter as a pagination strategy.

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