Generate order waybills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this admirably: fresh documents are always requested, nothing is cached, PDF links are signed and expire at expires_at, links should not be stored, and skipped chunks come back with a reason. This is critical operational context that would otherwise be invisible to the agent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and grouping, behavior around caching/expiry, skip conditions, and the source of chunk IDs. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (PDF links and skipped items), the grouping semantics, the expiration behavior, and the conditions under which chunks cannot be processed. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including required fields, types, array bounds, and the non-repetition rule. The description usefully reinforces that delivery_chunk_id comes from get_order delivery_chunks[].id, but it doesn't need to add more detail; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate waybills') with a clear resource ('order delivery chunks') and outcome ('return links to PDF documents'). It goes beyond the tool name by explaining grouping by warehouse + delivery service, which distinguishes it from delivery-related siblings like complete_order_delivery or get_order.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for delivery chunks that need waybills, and explicitly notes when chunks will be skipped (self-pickup, delivery not created, no warehouse, unsupported service). It also points to get_order as the source of chunk IDs, which guides the agent to a prerequisite call, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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