wb_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 behavioral disclosure burden. It weakly implies a read operation by mentioning 'statuses', but it does not state whether current statuses are returned, whether any state changes occur, what data is included, or how this differs from status history. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler, which is good for readability. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and its brevity omits essential usage and behavioral information, so it reads as under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, whether it provides current status or history, and how it relates to sibling order-status tools. It only states 'statuses of specific orders', which is not enough for an agent to call it confidently or choose it reliably.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds almost nothing beyond the schema. The parameter name order_ids is self-explanatory at the schema level, but the description only says 'specific orders' without clarifying how IDs are supplied, what constraints apply, or how the statuses map to the input IDs.

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 names the resource ('orders') and scope ('specific'), and the word 'statuses' reasonably conveys what is returned. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wb_orders_status_history, wb_dbs_orders_status, or wb_cc_orders_status.

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?

The phrase 'specific orders' implies this tool is for cases where the agent already has concrete order IDs and needs their statuses. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the sibling list.

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