avito_get_orders

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety; the description adds that it returns hasMore paging, order deadline schedules, and availableActions. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand returned data and how orders can be acted on.

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?

Compact and well-structured: endpoint, scope, parameters, and return shape each take one short block. Every sentence adds information; no filler or repetition.

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?

Covers invocation scope, all parameter semantics, response envelope, and key returned fields (availableActions, schedules). Enough for an agent to call it correctly without external docs; output schema absence is compensated by the description.

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 provides 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains every parameter: statuses allowed values, date_from as unix timestamp, page 1-based, limit <=20. This is a model example of the description compensating for a sparse schema.

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?

Clearly states the specific verb+resource: retrieving orders placed with Avito Delivery, via a named endpoint, scoped to B2C sellers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like avito_get_stocks and ym_get_orders.

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?

Gives clear context: this is for Avito Delivery orders, B2C sellers onlychers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is precise enough to guide selection.

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