search_lcsc_parts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: no API keys required, a 24-hour disk cache, and exponential backoff on retries, which tells the agent about auth and latency/retry behavior.

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, zero filler. The core purpose and capabilities are front-loaded and the operational facts (cache, backoff, no keys) follow without padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and partially does so by naming inventory, stock, package, and pricing. It falls short of describing result shape or how failures/manual-entry components are reported, but it is sufficient for a two-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%, so query and limit are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail for either parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Query) and resource (live LCSC / JLCPCB component inventory) and enumerates what it covers: inventory, stock, package, pricing. No sibling tool queries vendor inventory, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated. Clear and specific, but no explicit sibling contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description (look up parts before BOM/assembly steps), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Nothing routes the agent away from or toward this tool versus e.g. list_supported_chips or calculate_bom_cost.

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