Детали заказа

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not restate that. It usefully adds that the tool only serves entertainment orders and lists the kind of information returned, filling in behavioral scope without contradiction.

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 compact, grammatically efficient, and frontloaded. It covers the core behavior in the first sentence and immediately routes to the correct alternatives in the second, with no wasted words.

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 there is an output schema, the single required parameter, and read-only annotations, the description gives enough context for selecting and using the tool. It includes scope and alternative—only minor extra detail like error behavior for non-entertainment orders is missing, but that is not essential.

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 only has order_id string with no documentation, and the description adds no extra format, source, or validation details beyond saying this is for a single order. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only provides minimal compensation, but order_id is a clear enough identifier in context.

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?

Description states a clear resource (one order) and scope (entertainment orders: cinema/concerts), and lists the specific fields returned such as seats, hall, booking-code, and cart-composition. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

The description explicitly says what it is used for, and gives direct alternatives for other cases: grocery_order_status for grocery orders and travel_order_details(order_id) for travel. This clearly covers when to use this tool vs its siblings.

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