Download Jlcpcb Database

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: downloads resume automatically, force=true refreshes, and source-specific requirements (e.g., 7z CLI for yaqwsx). This goes beyond the annotations by detailing what side effects occur and under what conditions.

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 a clear opening statement, a bulleted list for sources, and a concise closing note on setup and refresh. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a download tool, the description covers source options, prerequisites, credentials, resume behavior, and refresh semantics. It doesn't mention the database storage path or that search tools depend on this database, but with an output schema present and sibling search tools, the description is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds extra value by enriching the 'source' parameter with concrete details (file sizes, reliability on Windows, 7z requirement) and by explaining the force parameter in the 'Re-run with force=true to refresh' sentence. This goes slightly beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Download the JLCPCB parts catalog to a local SQLite database for fast offline search.' This clearly states what the tool does and its purpose, and the source breakdown distinguishes it from sibling search/retrieval tools that consume the database.

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 guidance on when to use each source (e.g., 'Use source="yaqwsx" if you specifically want everything') and notes when official is used (only if credentials are set). It also mentions one-time setup and force refresh. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_jlcpcb_parts, though the purpose implies this is a prerequisite for offline search.

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