track_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates two important traits: the operation is a read-only tracking activity, and it includes 'защитой от перебора (DLP)' — protection against brute-force/attempt enumeration, signaling potential rate-limiting or verification lockouts. It doesn't specify thresholds or error modes, but the key safety behavior is disclosed.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the DLP caveat without redundant wording. Every element earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does (tracks readiness status) and what it provides (TTN number), while also flagging anti-brute-force behavior. An agent can correctly invoke it by passing the two required parameters and expect status and waybill information.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema: order_id with a positive integer constraint and phone_last4 with length 4 plus verification purpose. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Отслеживание' / tracking) and the specific resource: order readiness status and the Nova Poshta waybill number (TTN). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_firework_details or check_stock_availability, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 intended context evident: use this tool when you need to check an order's readiness and its Nova Poshta delivery waybill. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude conditions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this functionality, so the usage context is clear.

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