wb_dbs_orders_delivery_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a maximum batch size of 1000, which is useful, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens for invalid or missing order IDs, whether results are returned per order, or what the response shape looks like.

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 with no obvious filler, but it is a sentence fragment and contains a redundant Russian parenthetical '(дата доставки)'. Brevity is achieved at the cost of omitting the action verb and usage context, so it is not well-structured enough for an agent to fully rely on it.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only marginally complete. It gives a domain and a batch limit, but an agent would still have to guess the explicit operation, the meaning of order_ids, and the expected return behavior. This is not enough for confident selection and invocation.

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 for the undocumented order_ids parameter. It only adds the 'max 1000' cardinality constraint and does not explain that order_ids are DBS order identifiers or how they relate to the returned delivery date. The parameter meaning is mostly left to inference from the tool name.

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 data domain (delivery date/time chosen by the DBS buyer) and a batch limit, but it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'get', 'return', or 'fetch'. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is a retrieval operation. It partially distinguishes itself from sibling order tools by the delivery-date/DBS scope, but not strongly.

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 sibling tools like wb_dbs_orders, wb_dbs_orders_status, or wb_dbs_order_meta_get. The 'max 1000' note is an operational constraint, not a selection criterion, and there are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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