Get JLCPCB part detail

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 the return payload in detail (assembly tier with fee semantics, stock, price breaks, attributes, URL) and frames the operation as a lookup, implying read-only behavior without stating it explicitly. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it stops short of discussing failure modes.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the action and listing the key return fields in a compact parenthetical. The second sentence provides a clear usage directive, and every word adds value. No 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameter format, return contents, fee semantics, and intended usage within a single BOM workflow. It is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'lcsc' parameter, and the schema already states the format and example. The description reinforces the example and usage context but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Look up a single part by LCSC number' which is a specific verb+resource+identifier, and it distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on a single part by exact ID. The example 'C25804' and the BOM verification use case reinforce its unique role.

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 explicitly states 'Use to verify a candidate part before committing it to a BOM,' giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not enumerate alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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