jlcpcb_tdp_order_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key operational requirement: 'Requires API credentials.' The verb 'get' implicitly signifies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or describe any rate limits, error behavior, or return format. For a simple read tool, the credential note is valuable, but more transparency (e.g., 'does not modify order') would improve the score.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the API domain ('Official 3D-printing API'), states the action and target, and includes the credential requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter, single-purpose query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what input is needed, and a prerequisite. It doesn't describe the response shape, but the phrase 'get production progress' implies the nature of the output. It could mention error cases or more about the response, but given the low complexity, this is largely complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage by defining order_no as 'Order number'. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that the order is identified by number, and it does not specify format, source, or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; description does not need to compensate.

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 ('get') and resource ('production progress for a 3D-printing order') and clearly identifies the order by number. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_list (listing orders) and create_order (creating orders). It also explicitly scopes it to the 3D-printing API, separating it from PCB-related tools.

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 usage context: the agent must have an order number (likely from order_list or create_order) and should call this tool to check progress. It clearly states the input requirement ('by order number') and the domain (3D-printing). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on 'production progress' distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_detail.

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