jlcpcb_official_private_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements and that it is paginated, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that likely involves network calls.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('list YOUR account's private / consigned component library'), and includes essential context (authenticated, paginated, credentials). Every phrase contributes value without unnecessary fluff.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case, authentication, and pagination. It could have briefly described the return shape (e.g., component list with pagination info) since no output schema exists, but the description is largely complete for a list operation.

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%, with both parameters (page and page_size) already described in the schema. The description adds the term 'paginated' which connects to these parameters but provides no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already gives. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('YOUR account's private / consigned component library'), and explicitly distinguishes this from the public library by highlighting the account scope. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like jlcpcb_official_component_library.

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 clearly states when this tool is applicable (authenticated, only with API credentials) and implies it is for private/consigned parts rather than public catalog parts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the account-specific scope provides adequate contextual guidance against using the general component library tools.

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