order_get_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list of orders for an account but doesn't describe what the list includes (e.g., all orders, filtered by status), how it's paginated, any rate limits, authentication needs, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with financial data.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool in a financial context with siblings like 'order_get' and 'order_cancel', more behavioral context (e.g., what orders are included, any filters) would improve completeness, as annotations are absent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary detail while matching the schema's simplicity.

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 clearly states the verb ('Получение' - 'Getting') and resource ('списка заявок' - 'list of orders') for a specific account, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'order_get' (which presumably gets a single order) or specify what type of orders are included (open, closed, all).

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to use 'order_get_list' versus 'order_get' (for single orders) or 'account_get_trades' (which might overlap with order data), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for use.

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