lib_search_devices

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds context about the nature of results ('real bindings') and explicitly states that prices and stock are not inferred, which goes beyond the annotations and gives useful behavioral insight.

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, concise and free of filler. It directly states the purpose and a key behavioral detail, with no unnecessary 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 tool has 5 parameters (including a nested target object) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the purpose of the 'target' parameter, the meaning of 'page'/'limit', or provide any details about the return structure beyond 'real bindings'. Users would need additional documentation to use it effectively.

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?

Parameter schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only hints at 'keyword or LCSC part number', which partially maps to 'query' and 'lcsc' but does not clarify the 'target' object, 'page', or 'limit' parameters. It does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'library devices', and specifies two search modes (keyword or LCSC part number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eda_find_tools, which likely focus on different objects.

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?

The description indicates the tool is for searching library devices, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies usage but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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