orders__get_table_orders_by_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses MCP-server throttling (max 20 requests per 60 seconds) and advises caching results in the dialog. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational detail that helps an agent avoid rate-limit failures.

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 the core purpose, but it mixes three distinct ideas: purpose, ID sourcing, and throttling/caching. Each sentence adds some value, yet the flow is somewhat disjointed. It is not verbose, but the structure could be more coherent.

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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a schema that documents most fields, the definition is partially complete. The throttling disclosure and ID-sourcing hint are useful. However, it omits the 90-day retention noted in the schema, does not explain the response shape, and lacks any comparison to the similar sibling orders__get_table_orders_by_id. Given no output schema and very low parameter coverage, these are meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not. The only parameter-level hint is 'Где взять ID' for organization IDs, pointing to organizations__get_organizations. It does not explain tableIds, dateFrom/dateTo, statuses, or sourceKeys. The nested request object is a single parameter, which slightly raises the baseline, but most parameter meaning remains in low-level schema text.

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 a specific verb+resource: retrieving table orders for organizations by table. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar orders__get_table_orders_by_id. The phrase 'Столовые заказы организаций по столам' conveys the scope well.

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 orders__get_table_orders_by_id. The description does provide a hint on where to obtain organization IDs, but that is parameter sourcing, not usage context. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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