wb_orders_archive

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 does reveal that orders are finished or cancelled and filtered by a date period, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, date inclusivity, timezone handling, maximum range, or response format. This is only partial transparency for a data-retrieval tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key scope information is front-loaded. It could be slightly clearer with an explicit verb, but it is appropriately sized for a simple parameter set.

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 three-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to form a request: required date_from, optional date_to and limit. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the response contains or whether any pagination or limits apply. It is adequate for tool selection but thin for full invocation confidence.

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 67%, with date_from and date_to described as RFC3339 and limit left undescribed. The description adds 'for a period' to clarify the date parameters and adds status context, but it does not explain the limit parameter or the optional relationship between date_from and date_to. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but not fully.

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 states that the tool returns archived FBS orders for a given period and limits them to finished or cancelled statuses. This gives a clear resource, scope, and status filter, and the 'archive' concept distinguishes it from active-order tools like wb_orders_list and wb_orders_new. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is still clear.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling order tools. There are no alternative names, exclusion conditions, or context hints such as 'use this for historical orders only.' The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and short description.

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