search_lcsc_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: zero API keys required and a 24-hour disk cache, which warns the agent that stock/pricing could be up to a day stale, plus exponential backoff implying retry handling. It stops short of describing the return shape or 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by operational caveats. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a stateless search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers capability, data freshness, and reliability posture adequately. It could go further by hinting at what a result record contains or how misses are reported, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 both the query format (part number/model/description with examples) and the limit default are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb 'Query' paired with a concrete resource: LCSC/JLCPCB inventory, stock, package, and pricing. The domain is distinct from the circuit-synthesis and validation siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with calculate_bom_cost, the nearest neighbor.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this tool versus calculate_bom_cost or the other siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the implied 'supply a query'. The cache/backoff notes describe behavior, not usage conditions.

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