lib_get_device_by_lcsc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on multi-instance targeting behavior (the instance_id requirement) or what a multi-ID query returns. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes almost no extra context.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and a concrete example following immediately; no filler or 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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. A brief mention that results span libraries unless libraryUuid is supplied would close the remaining gap, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (lcscIds, instance_id, libraryUuid) are already documented in the schema, including the single-vs-array form and the multi-instance condition. The description's C-number example duplicates the schema's own example, adding no new syntax or format detail, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get device(s)') and identifies the lookup key ('by LCSC C-number(s)'), which distinguishes it from siblings like lib_get_device and lib_search_device that presumably key off other fields. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 example ('finding specific components like "C17414" for a 2.2k resistor') illustrates a valid use case, giving implied guidance on when to reach for this tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to lib_get_device / lib_search_device as the alternatives for non-LCSC lookups.

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