ozon_order_fbs_act_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not state the return format (PDF binary), whether the operation is read-only, or that no side effects occur. The agent is left to infer most behavioral details from the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good for structure. It is slightly too terse to be fully helpful, but it does not waste words.

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?

Even though this is a simple one-parameter tool, the absence of annotations and output schema makes the description the only contextual source. It fails to define the parameter or the expected response, so an agent cannot safely invoke the tool without additional inference.

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 has one undocumented 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not clarify what the id refers to (e.g., handover act id, order id, or some other entity). The agent cannot confidently know what value to supply.

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 ('Download') and a clear resource ('handover act PDF'), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does. It also distinguishes this from sibling create/status/digital-act tools because it is the PDF download operation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_order_fbs_digital_act or ozon_order_fbs_act_create. It does not mention prerequisites like the act needing to exist or be ready.

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