Print Packing Slips

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the return shape (URL or base64 PDF), the aggregation behavior (multiple orders combined into a single PDF), a concrete success payload, and specific error codes (400 for missing/invalid IDs, 404 for nonexistent orders). The one undisclosed behavior is what readOnlyHint=false means here — whether generating slips records a print event or otherwise changes order state is never explained.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action, then cleanly sectioned into when-to-use, parameters, returns, and errors, so an agent can stop reading at any point with what it needs. The inline example response is slightly redundant with the output schema, but it is short and reinforces the PDF-URL pattern rather than padding the text.

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 single-parameter generation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, triggering scenario, return format, and failure modes, which is everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only missing piece is the side effect implied by a non-read-only, non-idempotent annotation profile.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics; the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates that order_ids is required and must contain at least one ID, which the schema already enforces via required and minItems, adding no new meaning such as ID sourcing or practical batch-size limits.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate packing slip documents for one or more orders in StarShipIt.' It implicitly separates itself from the label-printing siblings by stating packing slips don't require a label first, but it never names starshipit_print_label or starshipit_print_labels explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' block gives a concrete scenario (warehouse staff picking, packing, verifying order contents before shipment) and a useful prerequisite clarification (no label needed first). There is no when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit pointer to the label-printing alternative for the adjacent task, keeping it short of a 5.

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