eda_lib_symbol_search_by_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the search is by-properties and returns a list, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-mutating, or what error/limits apply. The 'precise' qualifier is useful, but side-effect and safety characteristics are omitted.

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 Chinese purpose, and a return note. Every line carries information and there is no filler. It is not perfectly structured for an agent because the signature is mixed with prose, but it remains efficient.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation, yet the description only names `ILIB_SymbolPropertiesForSearch` and `ILIB_SymbolSearchItem` without defining their fields. It does not explain how to represent properties in the args array, what fields are valid, or the default behavior when `libraryUuid` is omitted. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this description alone.

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 schema only describes a generic JSON args array, so the signature in the description adds real meaning: parameter names, types, order, and optionality (`libraryUuid?: string`). It also indicates the first argument is a properties object, which is essential for constructing a call. This goes beyond the sparse 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 states a specific action: search symbols by properties, with the signature `searchByProperties(properties, libraryUuid?)`. The Chinese phrase '使用属性精确搜索符号' reinforces the verb-resource relation and the 'precise' qualifier. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling `eda_lib_symbol_search`, but the name and signature make the purpose clear.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `eda_lib_symbol_search`, `eda_lib_footprint_search_by_properties`, or `eda_lib_device_search_by_properties`. There is no mention of when libraryUuid should be provided, what happens if omitted, or which scenarios favor this exact-property search over other search tools.

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