Zovo Packing Slip Maker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: prices hidden by default, three page sizes, long orders spilling to a second page, an accompanying pick list totalled by SKU plus CSVs, and that problems are listed per line. It does not describe how problems are surfaced (warnings vs. failure), which is the one gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger phrase and tightly packed with facts, with the negative scope last. The keyword list in parentheses ('packing slip template', 'etsy packing slip 4x6', etc.) is somewhat padded but does real disambiguation work.

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 12-parameter, deeply nested tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers input routes, output artifacts, defaults and exclusions. What remains thin is the relationship to the sibling generate_pick_list and the exact shape of per-line problem reporting.

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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters with examples. The description only lightly reinforces a few of them (show_prices, page sizes, supported export formats); it adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('generate packing slips'), enumerates the exact outputs (one-slip-per-order PDF, pick list PDF, CSVs) and lists the phrasings a user might use. The agent can tell this is packing-slip generation rather than the sibling generate_pick_list, even though the pick list PDF is a by-product here.

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?

'Use this when the user wants packing slips' plus synonyms gives an explicit trigger, and it explains the two input routes (convert pasted text/image into order objects first, or pass a Shopify/Etsy/WooCommerce/Amazon export). The closing sentence gives negative scope (no postage, labels, barcodes, or store changes). It never names the sibling generate_pick_list or when to prefer it, so it stops short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial behaviour: aggregation rule (SKU, falling back to item name + variant), sort order, whole-number totals, flagging of missing or odd quantities, tick boxes per order, and dual PDF+CSV output. It also clarifies the operation is purely local reporting and does not touch store data.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and user phrasings before the mechanics, and every sentence carries substance (inputs, aggregation, output, exclusions). It is dense and long-sentence-heavy, but there is no filler 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?

Given six optional parameters, deep nesting, and a complex multi-source input model, the description covers what an agent must know: which input forms are accepted, how aggregation and ordering work, what the outputs are, and what the tool will not do. The presence of an output schema means return-value detail is not required.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining accepted input routes for the `orders`/`file` parameters — pasted text, an image converted to order objects, or attached Shopify/Etsy/WooCommerce/Amazon exports. It does not explain `columns`, `page_size`, or `home_country`, but those are fully documented in 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?

States a specific verb and artefact ('generate a pick list') plus the exact transformation performed: sums quantity of each SKU across orders, sorted by bin location then SKU, output as PDF and CSV. It explicitly separates itself from the only sibling by naming 'generate_packing_slips'.

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?

Opens with a concrete trigger ('Use this when the user wants a pick list...') and supplies real user phrasings, then names the excluded case ('without packing slips') and routes it to the alternative ('for packing slips use generate_packing_slips'). It also states a negative boundary: it does not check stock levels or change store orders.

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