Suggest Jlcpcb Alternatives

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds criteria for suggestions (cheaper, more stock, Basic library type) but does not disclose prerequisites such as database availability or network access. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides rich behavioral detail 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence elaborates on the types of alternatives, and the third gives usage context. Each sentence earns its place, though there is minor redundancy between 'suggest alternative' and 'finds similar parts'.

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 an output schema present, return values are handled. The description covers what the tool does, why it is useful, and the criteria for alternatives. It does not mention potential prerequisites like downloading the JLCPCB database, but this is a minor gap given the simple nature of the tool and the annotations.

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 both lcsc_number and limit clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('alternative JLCPCB parts for a given component'). It further specifies the meaning of alternatives (cheaper, more stock, Basic library type), distinguishing it from other JLCPCB search tools like search_jlcpcb_parts.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for cost optimization and finding alternatives when parts are out of stock.' It gives when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, though the sibling list makes the distinction inferable.

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