Search JLCPCB parts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a basic search statement by explaining the financial implications of tier selections (loading fees, which tiers are fee-free). It doesn't mention result structure or pagination, but for a read-only search tool the tier behavior is the most critical nuance and it is thoroughly disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) state what it does, (2) give usage examples and a sibling alternative, (3) explain the nuanced tier fees. There is zero filler or repetition—every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters, one enum, and no output schema. The description covers the query format, package filtering context, tier meaning with fee implications, and the distinction from a sibling. It doesn't describe result fields, but for a search tool the most important context—how to search and what the tier filter does—is fully addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete example queries ('AMS1117-3.3', '10k 0603', 'USB-C 16pin') and clarifies the non-obvious 'admit-lower semantics' of the tier enum beyond the schema's own description. This raises it above the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('JLCPCB/LCSC parts catalog'), then lists example use cases (ICs, connectors, LEDs) and concrete query formats. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_passives, which is the strongest form of purpose clarity.

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 gives explicit direction on when to use this tool versus search_passives ('For resistors/capacitors by exact value prefer search_passives'), provides multiple usage examples, and explains the tier filter semantics in detail. This is exactly the 'when-to-use vs alternatives' guidance the rubric asks for.

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