wb_orders_external_stickers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input limit and status precondition but does not describe the output format, side effects, or error behavior. Since this is likely a non-destructive sticker retrieval, the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 concise, with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key constraints (max 100, status complete) are packaged efficiently in a single short phrase.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it gives the purpose, the input limit, and the qualifying order status. It does not explicitly state the output type or provide an explicit 'use when' statement, but the low complexity reduces the impact of these omissions.

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 only defines order_ids as an array of integers, while the description adds meaningful constraints: max 100 and status complete. This directly helps the agent understand which order_ids are acceptable and how many can be passed.

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 the resource (delivery stickers) and the scope (cross-border), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_orders_stickers. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'generate', but the noun phrase and context make the intent clear.

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 states concrete usage conditions: cross-border orders, status complete, and a maximum of 100. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'cross-border' qualifier plus the sibling tool list make the intended context evident.

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