jlcpcb_tdp_order_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination/filterability and that API credentials are required, which are useful. However, it does not describe the response format, default parameters, rate limits, or explicitly state it's a read-only operation (though 'list' implies this).

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 sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives parameter guidance. Front-loaded, no redundant fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the 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's low complexity (one optional nested parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, filtering options, and authentication. It does not specify the return structure, but as a listing tool this is reasonably inferable. A slightly richer description of response content would make it a 5.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the 'params' property with a description listing the possible keys (currentPage, pageRows, orderStatus, searchKey, businessType, ...), and the tool description repeats these same keys without adding new types, constraints, or behavior details. Thus the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('list'), a distinct resource ('your 3D-printing orders'), and clarifies scope ('your'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jlcpcb_tdp_order_detail (single order) and jlcpcb_tdp_create_order (creation).

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?

It clearly states the tool is for listing 3D-printing orders and supports pagination/filtering, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use jlcpcb_tdp_order_detail for a single order'), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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