Get Part Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the search logic for mpn ('exact match, then normalized variants, then full-text search'), specifies a stock threshold ('stock >= 10'), and mentions sorting order ('sorted by stock'), which are not captured in 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence adds value—no fluff. It efficiently covers parameter rules, return formats, and a practical note, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's complexity (two parameters with conditional logic, different return formats based on input) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains parameter requirements, search behavior, return details (including specific fields like has_easyeda_footprint), and even includes a practical note for Atopile/KiCad users, leaving no gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing both parameters: lcsc is defined as 'LCSC part code' with an example, and mpn is defined as 'Manufacturer part number' with examples and a thorough explanation of its search behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific JLCPCB part', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jlc_search' (which likely returns multiple results) and 'jlc_stock_check' (which focuses on stock), establishing a specific lookup function.

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?

The description provides explicit usage rules: 'One of lcsc or mpn must be provided. If both are provided, lcsc takes precedence.' It also explains when to use mpn ('Useful for finding the JLCPCB equivalent of a part from another distributor or reference design'), guiding users on parameter selection based on their needs.

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