search_jlcpcb_parts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool performs a local search and requires a specific environment variable. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, caching, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. The action is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second a critical prerequisite. Excellent conciseness.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks parameter documentation and usage alternatives. The description covers the core purpose and a prerequisite but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and broader context. It is minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'query' parameter (search by MPN/description) but omits 'limit' and 'basic_only'. The description adds partial meaning but fails to document two of three parameters, leaving a significant gap.

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 the tool searches a local JLCPCB parts DB by MPN/description. It clearly specifies the verb (search), resource (local JLCPCB parts DB), and search method (by MPN/description). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_footprints and search_symbols, which search different resources.

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 mentions a key prerequisite: the environment variable KICAD_MCP_JLCPCB_DB must be set. It implies usage context: when you have a JLCPCB parts database. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among sibling tools, though the sibling tools target different resources.

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