Коды для создания заказа

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description reinforces this with 'Ничего не меняет' and adds value by explaining what data is returned (codes for specific fields and their origin). This goes beyond the annotations by detailing the content of the response, which helps the agent predict what it will receive.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose stated first and usage context second. Every sentence earns its place: the first lists exactly what is returned, the second gives a concrete use case. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (read-only preview) and the description tells what it returns and when to use it. However, it does not describe the output structure or format, and without an output schema an agent may not know how to interpret the result. It also doesn't mention potential errors or the role of the optional parameters in detail. Adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the response shape.

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 50%: only person_code has a description, filial_code has none. The description does not elaborate on either parameter. It does not explain what filial_code represents or how person_code affects the results beyond the schema's note that codes are more precise for a client. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented filial_code.

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 clearly states the tool returns the default codes for order creation and their sources (work zone, manager, price type, warehouse, robot). It distinguishes from creation tools by emphasizing this is a preview before recording. The phrase 'Полезно посмотреть до записи' differentiates it from the actual order creation flow.

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 explicit usage context: use it before recording an order, especially if the order was previously rejected. It implies this is a pre-check tool rather than the creation step. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like smartup_order_create, so the guidance lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' comparison. Still, the context is clear.

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