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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an auth prerequisite (an API key issued by a manager for the client/dealer account) plus a useful caveat that statuses are maintained by an AquaMania manager, implying human-updated rather than real-time data. It omits read-only confirmation, error behavior for an invalid key, and any notion of freshness or return format, leaving substantial gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler: purpose first, then auth prerequisite, then the argument-dependent behavior, then status ownership. Slightly dense and clipped, but every sentence earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data scope, auth requirement, and both invocation modes. The main shortfall is that it never conveys what a returned status looks like or how failures surface, but no output schema exists to shift that burden elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100% (orderId documented as the order number from dealer_order), so the schema already establishes the type and source. The description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining that omitting orderId returns a list of recent orders while supplying it returns a single detailed order, which changes how an agent should call it.

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 resource and scope: the status of the caller's OWN orders/quotes, with the possessive 'СВОИХ' marking the data boundary. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as dealer_order or get_quote, so an agent must infer the boundary between creating/tracking an order and reading its status.

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?

It documents the two invocation modes — no arguments to list recent account orders, orderId to fetch one order in detail — which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling tools (dealer_order, get_quote) or when not to call it, so the choice remains implied.

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