Search library device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds value by detailing result behavior: 'Full results carry complete metadata object per device' and the effect of minimal parameter. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second elaborates on result format and an important optimization. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (7 parameters, optional output schema), the description is minimal. It explains full vs minimal results but omits search details, pagination, and error scenarios. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed, but parameter usage context is lacking.

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 29% (only key and minimal have descriptions). The tool description adds info for minimal but fails to cover page, itemsOfPage, symbolType, libraryUuid, and classification. Parameter meaning remains unclear for the majority of parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Search for schematic symbols/devices in the EasyEDA library by keywords.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that directly conveys the tool's function. It also mentions the minimal flag feature, further clarifying the behavior without ambiguity.

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?

Provides usage guidance for the minimal parameter ('pass minimal:true when that is all you need'), but does not contrast with sibling tools or give when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice. No reference to alternatives like other search or inventory tools.

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