jlcpcb_search_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the local SQLite snapshot as the data source (implying possible staleness), and importantly distinguishes `jlc_assembly_stock` from `lcsc_retail_stock`, warning that a 0 in retail stock is NOT an assembly shortage. It also discloses the result ranking (Basic-first, assembly stock, unit price). This is strong behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only or cover error handling.

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: 4 sentences plus examples, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—the SQLite snapshot note, the stock field clarification, and the ranking explanation are all essential for correct interpretation. The examples are useful and take minimal space. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers important context: data source, stock field meanings, ranking, and example queries. It hints at result fields (descriptions, packages, attributes, categories). It could mention pagination, error behavior, or a more explicit return format, but it is reasonably complete for a search 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?

All 13 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds example queries and clarifies result semantics but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It matches the baseline without adding notable parameter guidance.

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: 'Search the JLCPCB component catalog by keyword and/or parametric filters, enriched with live pricing.' This provides a specific verb (Search), resource (JLCPCB component catalog), and scope (keyword/parametric filters). It also gives example queries, which reinforce purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jlcpcb_get_component_stock or jlcpcb_official_component_library, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context by providing example search queries ('10k resistor 0805', 'STM32F4', 'ceramic capacitor') and explaining key behavior like ranking and stock fields. It implies this tool is for searching the catalog, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, matching a 4.

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