Find alternative 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 discloses key behaviors: 'The original part is excluded from results' and details ranking criteria (tier, stock, price, reasons/warnings). This adds meaningful context about output and selection logic, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error cases.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence covers purpose, use cases, and behavior, followed by a second sentence with ranking details. No wasted words.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose, use cases, ranking logic, and output characteristics (reasons/warnings). It does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., list of alternatives) but the implied structure is sufficient for most agents.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'lcsc' and 'limit'. The description adds general context about ranking but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Given an LCSC part number, find ranked drop-in alternatives with matching specs and package.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_parts and get_part by focusing on alternatives for an existing part.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: 'useful when a part is out of stock, extended-tier (carries the $3 loading fee), or expensive.' This gives clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use it.

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