Список заказов

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behaviors: pagination returns hasNextPage/endCursor, a count under the same filter, and the critical caveat that orders older than 60 days are silently omitted without the read_all_orders scope. This is exactly the kind of contextual disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: the first states what is returned, the second explains pagination, the third gives query examples, and the fourth covers authorization. It is information-dense without being bloated.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect: page fields, count, cursor fields, and edge cases like silent omission. It also covers the entire call flow from initial request to next-page continuation, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already covers all three parameters, and the description adds extra value by explaining that 'after' accepts the endCursor from the previous page and giving rich query string examples for the 'query' parameter. This goes beyond simple schema descriptions, though the coverage means the baseline is already solid.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a page of orders, newest first, with a defined list of fields (number, date, financial status, fulfillment status, amount, client) and a count under the same filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order or cancel_order, even without naming them.

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 provides detailed usage instructions: cursor pagination flow, query syntax with concrete examples, and required OAuth scopes. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of get_order for listings', so it lacks direct alternative routing, but the context is unambiguous enough for a listing tool.

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