wb_dbs_orders

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It does add useful non-obvious behavior: Unix timestamps, a maximum 30-day window, and cursor-based pagination. But it doesn't clarify read-only status, output shape, sorting, or error behavior, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 extremely short and front-loads the most important selector, 'Finished DBS orders'. Every piece adds information, though the parenthetical '(DBS-заказы)' is redundant and the fragments could be clearer. Overall, there is no wasted text.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description gives the core facts: required date range, Unix timestamps, 30-day maximum, and pagination. However, it omits an explicit operation verb, limit semantics, exact cursor behavior, and any guidance on how it relates to sibling DBS order tools. It is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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. It adds meaning by stating 'Unix timestamps' for the date parameters, a '≤30 days' constraint, and 'cursor next' pagination. It still leaves 'limit' and the exact mechanics/reset behavior of 'next' unexplained, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 a specific resource category: finished DBS orders. The phrase 'Finished DBS orders' plus date-range and pagination hints implies a listing/query operation and distinguishes it from siblings like wb_dbs_orders_new. However, there is no explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', which leaves slight ambiguity.

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 word 'Finished' indicates this is for completed DBS orders, and sibling names like wb_dbs_orders_new, wb_dbs_orders_status, and wb_dbs_orders_client provide contrast. Still, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of those alternatives or what conditions rule it out.

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