ms_get_orders

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the 'sum' field is in kopecks and that the rubles parameter converts to rubles. It also returns a JSON structure with meta and rows, adding behavioral context.

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 well-structured with bullet points for arguments and return format. It is concise, but could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the sum explanation more naturally.

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?

The description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter details, filter syntax, money conversion, and return structure. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields. No mention of errors or limits, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description enriches all 4 parameters with details: limit max 1000, offset pagination, filter with example, and rubles conversion purpose.

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 clearly states 'List customer orders' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like ms_get_documents and ms_get_counterparties by focusing on 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ms_get_documents for all documents). The description only provides operational details, not comparative usage context.

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