Yandex Market: list orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and the 30-day API limitation, which is useful. However, it omits pagination behavior (cursor usage), any rate-limiting or error conditions, and does not clarify that results are paginated. This leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure beyond the minimal traits.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what it returns and the default period; the second adds read-only status and the API limitation. No redundancy or filler.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and the main constraint (30-day span) but omits guidance on pagination, which is critical for a list endpoint with a cursor parameter. It also does not explain how business_id or connection_id are resolved, though part of that is in the schema. The output schema exists, so return values are handled, but the usage context on pagination and parameter relationships is incomplete.

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 80% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions the default period but the schema already specifies 'ISO start date (defaults to −30 days). Range must not exceed 30 days.' It does not clarify the semantics of cursor, limit, business_id, or connection_id beyond what is already in the property descriptions. Therefore no significant added value.

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 ('Returns'), resource ('Yandex Market orders'), and the constituent fields (date, items, amount, status, shop). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wb_orders_list and ozon_orders_list by naming the marketplace, and from ym_campaigns_list by the resource type.

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?

Provides clear context: default period of 30 days, read-only nature, and the API limitation that a single request spans at most 30 days. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for detailed order search or when different criteria are needed), so it lacks exclusions but is above the baseline.

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