wb_search_product_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 7-day date restriction and the Jam permission requirement. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how the date range is enforced, what 'positions' means, or what the response contains. It adds some context but not enough for full transparency.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then states the key constraint and permission requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 has 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 25% schema coverage. The description is too short to cover what an agent needs to call it correctly: it does not explain return structure, pagination behavior, error conditions for exceeding 7 days, or what distinguishes 'positions' from other order data. It is a minimal introduction rather than a complete operational description.

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 only 25% (search_texts has '1..30 queries'), so the description must help interpret parameters. 'For a product' suggests nm_id is the product identifier, 'by search query' gives meaning to search_texts, and '≤7 days' constrains date_from/date_to. Yet it does not explain date format, the relationship between date_from and date_to, or the exact semantics of search_texts beyond queries.

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 the tool returns 'Orders and positions by search query for a product' and imposes a '≤7 days' limit. This identifies a specific resource (product orders) and separates it from generic order tools like wb_orders_list or wb_search_report, though 'positions' remains somewhat vague and no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' is used.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, such as wb_search_table_details, wb_search_report, or wb_dbs_orders. It only mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Jam') but no exclusions, alternative selection criteria, or context for when this specific search is preferred.

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