List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by explaining the domain lifecycle (external system creates, courier fiscalizes after delivery and payment) and by naming the fields returned (status, payment state and method, linked receipt id) plus what is deliberately excluded. Pagination and default-clamping behavior live only in the schema, not here.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return/exclusion note. Every clause carries information: the domain definition, the lifecycle, the returned fields, and the routing hint. The Ukrainian gloss on 'orders' is a minor cost in a bilingual product context, not padding.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the meaningful return fields and flagging the omitted ones with a pointer to get_order. All 8 optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the read-only annotation set covers the safety profile, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% across all 8 parameters, including formats, defaults and the ISO-8601 offset guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) plus the resource (orders) and then defines what an order actually is in this domain: a draft receipt created by an external system, pending fiscalization after delivery and payment. That definition alone separates it from receipt- and shift-oriented siblings, and it explicitly names get_order as the tool holding the omitted customer details.

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 for when this is the right call (browsing draft/fiscalization-pending orders) and points to get_order for customer delivery details, which is a real alternative-selection signal. It stops short of stating exclusions such as whether fiscalized orders are included or when to prefer search_receipts instead.

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