Parametric resistor/capacitor search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool parses value strings into ohms/farads, searches by exact spec, optionally filters by package, and that results are ordered with a preference for basic-tier parts. This goes well beyond a generic search description, though it does not detail return format or error handling.

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 sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The most important information (what and when) is front-loaded, and the text is concise and scannable.

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 that this is a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to invoke it (value and optional package), when to use it instead of alternatives, and what to expect from results. No significant gaps remain.

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, but the description enriches the parameter meaning with parsing examples ('10k', '4k7', '100nF') and clarifies that values are interpreted as ohms/farads. This helps the agent construct valid inputs, especially for the 'value' parameter.

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 specifies a precise action ('Parametric JLCPCB search') and distinct resource ('chip resistors or capacitors by value'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it uses exact spec parsing rather than fuzzy text matching, making it clear when this tool is the right choice.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over search_parts for R/C BOM lines — it avoids fuzzy text matches.' It also describes the optional package filter and how to request specific component values, providing clear context for invocation.

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