Один заказ

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (header, composition, status) and its intent to explain why an order was not shipped. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with examples and no filler. The core behavior and lookup identifiers are 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?

Given the annotations and schema, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. Minor gaps remain around what happens when both identifiers are provided or when neither is provided, and filial_code is undocumented.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces deal_id/external_id as lookup keys but adds no extra meaning for filial_code or the begin/end date behavior.

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?

Description states a clear retrieval purpose: 'Один заказ целиком' by deal or external number, and names the return contents (header, lines, status). It distinguishes itself from the plural-list sibling smartup_orders and the status-focused smartup_order_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?

Concrete example queries ('что в заказе 283581248', 'почему заказ не отгружен') make the intended use case clear Acronyms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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