Search Jlcpcb Parts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the local database requirement, the need to download it first, and that it provides real pricing, stock info, and library type. No contradiction 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisite, usage context, and alternative. It is slightly redundant (first sentence repeats the title), but every sentence carries meaningful information.

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 presence of a complete input schema with 100% coverage and an output schema, the description covers the remaining crucial context: the local database prerequisite, differentiation from a sibling tool, and the type of data returned (pricing, stock, library type). It is complete for a search/filter tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces the meaning of 'library_type' by noting 'Basic parts = free assembly'.

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 'Search' and the resource 'JLCPCB parts catalog by specifications'. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'search_parts_registry' by contrasting sourcing/stock data with verified KiCAD footprints.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'Use this to find components with exact specifications and cost optimization.' Also gives an explicit alternative: 'For a verified, ready-to-use KiCAD footprint/symbol/3D bundle... use search_parts_registry instead.' Additionally, it states the prerequisite of downloading the database first with download_jlcpcb_database.

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