wb_cc_orders_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, how errors are handled, or whether any special permissions are required. 'Statuses' weakly implies a read operation, but that is not explicit or sufficient.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient communication. A fragment with no verb and no additional context does not earn credit for conciseness.

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 many closely related click-and-collect sibling tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should at minimum state that this tool returns statuses for the provided order IDs and how that differs from wb_cc_orders or wb_cc_order_meta_get.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the order_ids parameter. It does not mention order_ids at all, nor does it clarify what statuses will be returned for which inputs. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no semantic value.

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 is a noun fragment, 'Click-and-collect task statuses', that essentially restates the tool name without an operative verb. It never states whether the tool retrieves statuses, updates them, or performs some other action, so it cannot reliably differentiate from siblings like wb_cc_orders or wb_cc_order_action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related click-and-collect tools such as wb_cc_orders, wb_cc_orders_new, wb_cc_order_identity, or wb_cc_order_meta_get. The description implies 'statuses' but provides no exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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