jlcpcb_pcb_get_audit_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it requires API credentials, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns any particular status, or any rate limits. For a tool that fetches audit info, the agent is left to guess the response format and behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the credentials requirement.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose and a key requirement. No filler words. It front-loads the action ('Official PCB API: get engineering audit info') and includes essential context ('Requires API credentials.'). This is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the audit info is used for, any prerequisites beyond credentials (e.g., prior upload), and the response nature. The tool has only 2 simple parameters, so complexity is low, but the description lacks return-value details and operational context. It is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, with both parameters described ('Audit key (e.g. the fileKey/order key)' and 'Language code, if supported'). The description itself does not add extra semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions 'by key', which aligns with the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description's 'by key' somewhat reinforces the key parameter's meaning.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'engineering audit (review) info for an uploaded design by key', which distinguishes this tool from siblings like order detail or file analysis. It names the key parameter and indicates it retrieves audit information, making the core purpose clear. It could further differentiate from jlcpcb_pcb_get_order_detail and jlcpcb_tdp_file_analysis_result, but the phrase 'by key' and 'engineering audit (review) info' gives adequate specificity.

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 phrase 'Official PCB API' sets context and 'Requires API credentials.' provides a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jlcpcb_pcb_get_order_detail or jlcpcb_tdp_file_analysis_result. The 'by key' hint implies it's for a specific audit key, but it does not specify scenarios. Thus, it provides clear context but lacks exclusions or explicit alternative references.

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