jlcpcb_get_datasheet_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the fallback behavior ('prefers live API, falls back to catalog snapshot'), which is useful context about potential data source variability. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or what the URL format will be.

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 precise sentences: the first states the primary action and second adds a key behavioral detail. No redundant content or filler.

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 simple, one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and an important behavioral nuance (fallback logic). It is not fully complete (no error/edge-case mention), but sufficient for straightforward invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including the part number format and optional 'C' prefix. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema already provides sufficient guidance, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('datasheet PDF URL for a specific JLCPCB part'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle components, pricing, or orders.

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 implies usage (when you need a datasheet URL), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for full component details use get_component_details'. It relies on the specificity of the tool name and the phrase 'specific part'.

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