wb_dbs_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, yet it only discloses the 1000-item limit. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what a status response contains, how errors or missing orders are handled, or any side effects. The 'max 1000' hint is useful but insufficient.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The 'max 1000' constraint is concise and relevant. However, the core phrase mostly restates the tool name, so the efficiency comes at the cost of substance.

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?

The tool is structurally simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description still lacks response format, status semantics, and behavior on invalid or oversized inputs. The only operational detail is the 1000-order limit, leaving too much to inference.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain the order_ids parameter, but it only adds the maximum count. The meaning of order_ids is left to be inferred from the tool name, and no detail about accepted formats or behavior for invalid IDs is provided. The max-1000 constraint is the only added 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 identifies the resource domain ('DBS order statuses', 'статусы DBS') and adds a meaningful max-1000 limit, but it uses no verb, so it reads as a label rather than an explicit action like 'retrieves statuses for DBS orders.' It mostly restates the tool name and only distinguishes from siblings through the 'DBS' qualifier.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent can infer from 'DBS' that this concerns DBS orders, but nothing distinguishes it from wb_dbs_orders, wb_dbs_orders_client, or wb_cc_orders_status, and no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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