print_waybill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that the tool returns a document *link* rather than the PDF itself, but it says nothing about what happens when the order has no generated waybill, whether the link expires, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the resource, and the output format without any filler or 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains what the returned link is for. However, the lack of any precondition or failure-mode information leaves behavioral gaps that annotations would otherwise have covered.

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%, so the orderId parameter (type, exclusivity, meaning) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('official printable Nova Poshta PDF document link for shipping labels and package stickers'), which is concrete and distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling create_nova_poshta_waybill. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the read-vs-create distinction is inferable from the wording.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is called after a waybill exists to obtain its print link, reinforced by the schema's 'order with a generated waybill' note. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like create_nova_poshta_waybill, and no stated precondition for calling it.

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