wb_orders_stickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior: a 100-item maximum and the accepted output formats. But it does not state whether the tool returns files, downloads, or raw data, nor what happens if the limit is exceeded.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before moving to constraints and formats. The Russian parenthetical '(стикеры заказов)' is slightly redundant with the English text, but it does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large family of sticker/order tools, this description is too sparse. It omits width/height semantics, the shape of the result, and any guidance for distinguishing this tool from wb_orders_external_stickers or supply-trbx stickers.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It partially does: the format list maps to sticker_type, and 'max 100' relates to order_ids. However, width and height are completely unexplained, and the agent is left guessing at units, constraints, or whether they are optional.

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 clearly identifies the resource as stickers for FBS assembly tasks and lists the supported formats, which tells an agent what the tool produces. It lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'download' and does not distinguish it from sibling sticker-related tools such as wb_orders_external_stickers, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for FBS assembly tasks' gives a clear context for when the tool is relevant, and 'max 100' hints at a practical limit. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like wb_orders_external_stickers or wb_supply_trbx_stickers, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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