lib_find_alternative_parts

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It only states a high-level action without disclosing how 'nearby' is determined, whether the tool queries an external service (like jlcsearch), or whether it is read-only. The behavior of tolerance and source parameters is left entirely unexplained.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that is efficiently worded and front-loaded with the action. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool has three parameters and no schema descriptions, yet the description covers only one parameter and provides no context about the 'source' or 'tolerance_percent' semantics. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the input side is underdescribed for a tool with options and defaults.

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 description explains the lcsc_code parameter but omits 'source' and 'tolerance_percent', both of which are non-obvious (especially 'source' with default 'jlcsearch'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining all parameters, but it covers only one.

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 ('Find') and resource ('alternative parts') and clearly identifies the key input ('supplied LCSC code'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lib_search_components or lib_check_stock_availability by focusing on finding alternatives rather than general search or availability.

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 intended use case is implied: when you need alternative parts for an LCSC code. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar tools like lib_recommend_part, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. It provides a clear context but lacks comparison with alternatives.

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