wb_orders_list

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states scope. It does not mention pagination via limit, whether cancelled or returned orders are included, ordering, response shape, or any side effects. For a read/list tool, this leaves significant unknowns.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core idea is front-loaded: resource and time period. The bilingual restatement is minor but not harmful. It is concise without being wordy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, three parameters, and a very large sibling list, this description is too thin to be complete. The agent is missing information about return format, pagination behavior, date-range semantics, and how this differs from other order-related endpoints.

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 description adds the concept of a 'period,' which helps the agent understand that date_from and date_to define the range. However, it does not explain limit or add meaning beyond the schema's RFC3339 descriptions. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially reinforces the parameters but leaves the limit parameter unsupported.

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 (orders) and the selection criterion (a time period), so the agent can infer this is a date-range listing endpoint. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not name sibling tools, but the period scope helps distinguish it from order-status and order-creation siblings.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_orders_new, wb_orders_status, or wb_cc_orders. The description gives no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no hint about which order-related sibling should be selected instead.

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