jlcpcb_get_component_stock

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it fetches from two distinct pools, one from a catalog snapshot (assembly) and one live from wmsc.lcsc.com (retail), and explains their relationship. This goes beyond a basic read operation and prevents misinterpretation of stock data. It also notes that assembly stock is the authoritative number for PCBA.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently packs the essential distinction between the two stock pools 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?

The description is complete for a simple stock-lookup tool with one parameter. It names the output fields (jlc_assembly_stock and lcsc_retail_stock) and gives interpretive guidance. It could mention the output format or response structure, but that is largely implied and not a major gap.

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?

The input schema describes the 'lcsc' parameter thoroughly with examples and notes the optional 'C' prefix (100% coverage). The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get stock for a specific JLCPCB part.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pricing, details, and search by focusing on stock across two named inventory pools. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool and how to interpret results: 'Treat assembly stock as authoritative for board production' and warns that LCSC-retail 0 does not imply unavailability. It does not explicitly name alternatives like jlcpcb_get_component_pricing, but the guidance is strong enough for correct usage.

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