order_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is for 'Получение информации' (Getting information), which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the order ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it could be more structured if it included additional details.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it should provide more context on behavior and parameters to be fully helpful.

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 0%, and the description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides. It mentions 'конкретном ордере' (specific order), which hints at the 'order_id' parameter, but doesn't explain its format, constraints, or examples. With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 'Получение информации о конкретном ордере' (Getting information about a specific order) states the basic purpose with a verb ('Получение' - Getting) and resource ('ордере' - order). However, it's vague about what specific information is retrieved and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'order_get_list' or 'order_cancel' beyond mentioning 'конкретном' (specific).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an order ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'order_get_list' for multiple orders or 'order_cancel' for modifications. The description implies usage for a single order but lacks explicit context.

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