Stock Check (Live API)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: it's a 'live API' for 'real-time' verification, mentions pagination behavior ('Pagination through large result sets'), and notes it's specifically for low-stock scenarios ('Parts with stock < 10 or out-of-stock parts'). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides operational context beyond them.

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 efficiently structured: purpose and guidelines upfront, followed by categorized parameter explanations and return note. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters, using bullet points and clear sections without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description provides comprehensive guidance: clear purpose, explicit usage scenarios, detailed parameter semantics, and notes on output ('Results with pagination. Use get_part(lcsc) for full details.'). With annotations covering safety and an output schema presumably detailing returns, the description fills all necessary gaps without over-explaining structured data.

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 and 14 parameters, the description carries full burden. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all parameters: examples (e.g., 'ESP32' for query), clarifications (e.g., 'default 10. Set 0 for out-of-stock parts' for min_stock), enumerations (e.g., library_type options), and usage notes (e.g., 'Category ID from search_help'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool performs 'Real-time stock verification via live JLCPCB API' with specific verb ('verification') and resource ('stock'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'jlc_search' (faster with parametric filters) and 'jlc_get_part' (full details). It explicitly differentiates from 'jlc_search' by noting this tool is for real-time verification before orders.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use jlc_search first for most queries — it's faster and supports parametric filters. Only use this when you need: - Real-time stock verification before placing an order - Parts with stock < 10 or out-of-stock parts - Pagination through large result sets.' It names the alternative tool ('jlc_search') and specifies three concrete scenarios for this tool's use.

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