get_component_details

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly lists the types of data returned (specifications, stock, pricing, datasheet, images), which gives good insight into behavior. It does not mention any side effects, but as a read-only fetch tool, that is acceptable.

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 concise sentences plus an example line. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Perfectly sized.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output via description), and the existence of an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and what data it returns.

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 has 100% description coverage with a clear description of the 'lcsc' parameter. The description adds value by providing an example and clarifying that it is a JLCPCB part number, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed information for a specific JLCPCB component' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_components (searching vs. fetching a single component) and database_status/refresh_database (management operations).

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?

Provides an example showing how to use the tool (lcsc='C17976') and implies usage context: when you need detailed data for a known component. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like search_components for broader queries.

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