lcsc_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default tier filtering (basic-only), the option to include extended parts, and the sort order (basic-first then descending stock). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, but for a search tool the disclosed behaviors are the most relevant ones. A 4 is appropriate; a 5 would require more depth like result count limits or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function, the second explains the default tier behavior and how to override it, and the third describes the sort order. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the default behavior and sort order, which are the non-obvious aspects. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could have mentioned what fields are returned per result. However, the schema covers all inputs, and the description covers the key behavioral nuances, so a 4 is justified.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default tier behavior and sort order, which relates to basic_only and the overall result set, but it doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description's tier/sort context is a small bonus that doesn't push it to 4.

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 function: searching the LCSC/JLCPCB catalog with a free-text query. It specifies the resource (LCSC/JLCPCB catalog), the action (search), and the input type (free-text query). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like lcsc_resolve_bom by focusing on catalog search rather than BOM resolution.

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 context on when to use this tool: when searching for parts by free-text query. It explains the default behavior (basic-tier only) and how to change it (basic_only=false). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list shows lcsc_resolve_bom as a related but distinct tool, and the description's focus on catalog search implies the use case. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance prevents a 5.

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