Estimate JLCPCB assembly parts cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full disclosure burden. It clearly explains the fee structure ($3 per unique extended-tier part; no fee for basic/preferred parts) and the quantity calculation (qty = board_qty × qty_per_board). It also states what is excluded (fabrication and assembly charges), providing solid behavioral context though not detailing the response format.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second excludes non-included costs, and the third gives usage timing. It is dense, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or irrelevant wording.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it computes, how fees are calculated, what is excluded, and when to use it. It omits only optional details like response breakdown structure, which are not required because there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining how board_qty and qty_per_board interact to determine the quantity for price breaks, and clarifies that the fee applies per unique extended-tier part, going beyond the schema's simple property definitions.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Estimate' and names the exact resource: the parts side of a JLCPCB assembly order for LCSC parts. It also implies that the tool is distinct from sibling tools like suggest_bom_parts and find_alternatives by stating it is used after finalizing part picks.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after finalizing part picks from suggest_bom_parts / find_alternatives,' giving clear timing relative to alternatives. It also clarifies exclusions ('Does not include PCB fabrication or per-joint assembly charges'), which sets expectations for when not to use this tool for a full cost estimate.

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