ozon_orders

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It instead adds genuinely new behavioral context: a privacy/ownership gate on what data is returned, and a preview of the response payload (delivery timing, statuses, detail links, return/review eligibility) that has no output schema to carry it.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short privacy caveat — well front-loaded with no filler. The heavy slash syntax ('Активные/завершённые/all', 'доставят/доставили', 'возврата/отзыва') is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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?

Return content is reasonably covered despite the absence of an output schema, and the privacy constraint is stated. However, for a paginated list tool with three undocumented parameters, the omission of paging and default-filter behavior leaves an agent guessing how to iterate results.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It echoes the status values (active/completed/all) that are already enumerated in the schema, but says nothing about limit, cursor, pagination behavior, or default status when the parameter is omitted.

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 names the resource (orders) and the scope explicitly in three variants (active/completed/all), then enumerates what each entry carries: delivery content and timing, statuses, detail links, and return/review availability. It is far more specific than the bare tool name, though it never names the sibling detail tool it points to with 'ссылки на детали'.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope enumeration (use it to survey orders in any of the three states), and there is a real constraint — private data only on the owner's request — but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over ozon_order_detail or how the status filter should be chosen.

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