wb_supply_order_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates a result ('assembly task IDs') but never states that this is a read-only retrieval, whether it returns a list, or any side effects or authorization requirements.

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 one short phrase with no filler and it front-loads the core result before the scope. It loses one point for being a sentence fragment rather than a complete instruction, plus the parenthetical translation is somewhat redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough intent to call it, but it omits response shape and does not clarify how this relates to the several other supply-oriented sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only the 'FBS supply' context to supply_id. The property name is self-explanatory enough to make the tool minimally callable, but format, source, or relationship to other supply identifiers are not covered.

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?

Identifies a specific resource (an FBS supply) and the result entity (assembly task IDs), which makes the tool's focus fairly clear. It stops short of a 5 because it has no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not contrast with sibling supply tools.

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 'inside an FBS supply' implies the tool is used when a supply_id is known and the needed output is its assembly task IDs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many wb_supply_* siblings.

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