awb_print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the return type (URL or base64) but does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavior is minimally described.

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 two sentences plus a parameter definition. Every part is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the return format (URL/base64) and one parameter. However, given the presence of an output schema, more context on the return structure could be inferred, but behavioral details (e.g., any state changes) are missing. Adequate for a simple print tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description explicitly defines 'awb_id' as 'Internal AWB record ID.', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. This helps the agent understand the parameter's role.

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 action ('generate'), resource ('printable shipping label'), and scope ('for an AWB'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like awb_create, awb_list, etc., though not explicitly from awb_generate. Overall, purpose is 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. Siblings include awb_generate which might be similar, but no differentiation or context is given. The description does not specify prerequisites or use cases.

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