ozon_order_fbs_label

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the output type (PDF base64) but says nothing about side effects, authorization needs, read-only nature, limits on posting_numbers count, or error behavior. The agent cannot anticipate what happens on invalid or too many posting numbers.

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 extremely brief — a short phrase plus translation. It is concise but wastes the opportunity to add behavioral or usage context. While no sentence is superfluous, the structure doesn't aid comprehension beyond a bare label of the tool's purpose.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, this description leaves critical gaps: how to process the returned base64, whether multiple labels correspond one-to-one with the input posting numbers, and any constraints or exclusions. For a tool requiring an array input, more detail is needed for reliable agent invocation.

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 documents the single 'posting_numbers' array parameter with its type, which is minimally sufficient. The description adds no detail about number formats, maximum array length, or behavior when a posting number is invalid. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could have compensated, but the parameter is self-explanatory enough for a baseline.

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 states the tool's function: it returns FBS posting labels as PDF base64. The resource ('label') and output format are clear, distinguishing it from related order-management tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or detail the full process.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus related FBS order tools like ozon_order_fbs_get or ozon_order_fbs_act_pdf. An agent cannot infer prerequisites, posting status requirements, or whether labels are generated on-demand or retrieved from existing data.

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