wb_cc_orders

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool deals with finished tasks and Unix timestamps, but says nothing about mutation vs. read-only behavior, pagination behavior, output shape, or possible errors.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key resource and date constraint, but it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence. It packs some information efficiently but omits essential context that would justify a higher score.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to provide more operational context. It mentions the data scope and date range, but it fails to clarify pagination fields, return format, required parameter semantics, or how this tool fits with the related wb_cc_* siblings.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds the useful 'Unix timestamps' and '≤30 days' context for the date range, but it does not explain date_to, next, or limit semantics beyond the defaults already present in the schema.

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 identifies the resource as 'finished click-and-collect tasks' and adds a time constraint, so an agent can roughly infer this is a list/retrieval tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like wb_cc_orders_new, wb_cc_orders_status, or wb_cc_order_identity beyond the word 'finished'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many related click-and-collect tools. The only usage hint is the ≤30-day limitation, which is a constraint rather than a selection criterion.

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