eda_lib_device_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns a list, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, permissions, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 very short and includes a signature plus a one-line Chinese note. It is concise but not well-structured: the purpose is not front-loaded, and the signature is technical without a human-readable explanation. It is acceptable in size but lacks clear organization.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, return value structure, or any behavioral traits. An agent cannot reliably determine how to construct the args array beyond the parameter order, which is a major gap.

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?

The description includes the full function signature with parameter names and types, but does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., what 'key' represents, how 'classification' or 'symbolType' should be used). The schema only describes the args array format, not individual parameters, so the description should compensate but does not provide semantic explanations.

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 states the tool searches for devices and returns a list of device attribute properties. It is clear enough, but it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like eda_lib_device_search_by_properties or eda_lib_device_get_by_lcsc_ids, so it lacks the specificity to distinguish among alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides a signature and a terse 'search device' phrase, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when to prefer another sibling search tool.

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