szlcsc_get_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention if the tool is read-only or destructive, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the identifier is invalid. For a tool that fetches data, at minimum a read hint should be noted.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key mechanism (identification type) and lists the output categories efficiently. Slightly verbose due to listing many return types, but appropriate for a data retrieval tool.

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 has one parameter and a presumably rich output schema (not shown, but stated as present), the description clearly indicates what the tool returns. It provides enough context for an agent to select this tool for fetching full part data by identifier, though it could mention that the output schema defines the structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It states '按 C 编号或明确 MPN 获取' which explains that identifier can be a C number or MPN, adding meaning beyond the bare schema type 'string'. This is adequate for one 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 clearly states the tool retrieves details, parameters, inventory, price, product page, and Datasheet for a Chinese SZLCSC part using a C number or MPN. It specifies the two identification methods (C number or MPN) and the specific resources returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like szlcsc_search or szlcsc_parametric_search.

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 implies use when you have a specific C number or MPN and need comprehensive part data, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. With many sibling tools, the description does not address scenarios where other tools (like szlcsc_search or szlcsc_find_alternatives) might be more appropriate.

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