Orders: create labels (up to 1000)

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

The description reveals critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it creates an asynchronous task (returns a taskID), enforces a strict rate limit of 1 request per minute, and requires waiting and a follow-up call to download the file. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description adds significant value.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of four short sentences that each convey essential information: the purpose, the limitation, the difference from a sibling, and the return value with next steps. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (async, rate-limited, conditional availability) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, prerequisites (pickup-point only), rate limit, return value, and the need to use another tool to download the result. It could mention potential error states or timeouts, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (dryRun, orderIDs, idempotencyKey). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema; it only echoes the maxItems constraint. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool creates a task to generate PDF labels for large batches of orders, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'orders_generate_labels' by highlighting the higher order limit (1000 vs 100) and stricter rate limit. The verb 'creates' and resource 'PDF labels for orders' are specific and unambiguous.

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 specifies the tool is only for pickup-point orders and contrasts it with 'orders_generate_labels' by noting the different order limits and rate limits. It also directs the user to download the result via 'orders_download_label'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide based on order count and rate requirements.

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