Заказы

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: results are sorted by creation date descending, limit=0 means 'show all', and an empty kind means no filtering. This gives an agent useful runtime expectations not present in the annotations.

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: three sentences that cover scope, filter values, ordering, and limit semantics. Every sentence adds new and useful information without redundancy. This is well-structured and easy for an agent 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?

With only two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: what kind values mean, how limit works, and that data is sorted newest-first. It does not mention pagination or the distinction between one order and many orders relative to siblings, but this is not a significant gap for a read-only list tool.

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. It explains that kind accepts 'афиша', 'кино', 'путешествия', 'продукты', or an objectType code, and that an empty value means all orders. It also explains limit=0 explicitly. The main limitation is that the list of possible objectType codes is not exhaustive.

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 'Все заказы клиента' (all client orders) and enumerates the domains covered: groceries, cinema, concerts, flights, rail, hotels. This clearly identifies the tool as a broad order-list endpoint, distinguishable from detail-focused siblings like order_details. It lacks an explicit verb for 'return' or 'list', so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 makes the usage context clear: retrieve all client orders, with an optional category filter via kind. It also states ordering behavior and the special limit=0 meaning. It does not explicitly mention when to use a sibling tool instead, so no exclusions are given, but the context is strong enough for selection in most cases.

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