eda_lib_footprint_search_by_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mostly restates the signature and return type, adding only 'precise search' as behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how matching behaves with missing properties, whether libraryUuid limits scope, or any error/pagination behavior.

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 compact: a signature, a one-line semantic statement, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the API signature. There is minor redundancy between the return type in the signature and the 'returns:' line, but 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?

For a tool with a complex custom search-object parameter and no output schema, this is incomplete. An agent cannot determine which property keys are valid, what data each search item contains, whether libraryUuid is required in practice, or how the exact-match semantics behave. The generic args schema and lack of annotations make this gap more significant.

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 input schema only describes a generic args array and windowId, so the description's signature adds real value by naming the parameters (properties, libraryUuid), their types, and the optionality of libraryUuid. However, it does not explain the fields of ILIB_FootprintPropertiesForSearch, leaving the main search criteria ambiguous.

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 a specific action: searching footprints by properties, backed by the signature lib_Footprint.searchByProperties and the Chinese phrase '使用属性精确搜索封装' (precise search by properties). It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling eda_lib_footprint_search.

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 eda_lib_footprint_search or the sibling *_search_by_properties tools. The description implies a property-based search but provides no context about when that is preferable, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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