wb_dbs_orders_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses only the order state, leaving unclear whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, whether pagination applies, or what side effects (if any) exist.

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 contains no filler. It states the core resource and state in one compact phrase, with a helpful Russian translation appended. Every word contributes.

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 zero-parameter tool this is minimally viable: the agent can guess it returns new DBS orders awaiting assembly. However, the lack of an explicit verb, return-format details, or any differentiation from similarly named order tools leaves a notable gap in completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema fully covers that fact. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies.

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 ('DBS orders') and a specific state ('awaiting assembly'), which distinguishes it from generic order tools like wb_dbs_orders and wb_cc_orders_new. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action like 'list' or 'get', so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval tool.

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 choose this tool over the many sibling order-related tools. The phrase 'awaiting assembly' implies a use case, but no alternative tools are named, and no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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