lib_search_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds return-field context (UUIDs, names, descriptions, package info) but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or rate/instance constraints beyond what the schema already says.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the return shape second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the schema fully documents the five parameters. It is adequate for a read-only search tool; only pagination/default-result behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap given the page/itemsOfPage params.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including the 0-based page, instance_id, and libraryUuid are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by keyword' merely restates the key parameter, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (component library devices) plus the key mechanism (by keyword). It is distinguishable from lib_get_device and lib_get_device_by_lcsc by retrieval mode, though it never names those siblings explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

'by keyword' implies the intended use case (find devices when you don't already have an identifier), but the description states no when-to-use condition, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives such as lib_get_device or lib_get_device_by_lcsc. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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