luceed_nalozi_prodaje

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that Luceed does not sort or paginate, that raw statusi output is unsorted, and that statusi needs a filter. Critically, it omits that at least one action (izmjena_status) appears to be a mutation, so an agent cannot tell which actions write data, nor what permissions or side effects apply.

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 most important constraint (no sort/pagination) is front-loaded and the alternative tool is named early, which is good structure. The trailing enum list is long but it does map directly to the action param, so it earns its space; the sentence is information-dense with minimal 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 9-param, 10-action, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the cross-cutting caveats well (sorting, pagination, alternative tool) but leaves per-action behavior, required parameters per action, and return shapes unexplained. It is adequate but clearly gapped for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only one parameter-level insight (statusi requires a status filter); it does not say which params each action needs, nor clarify od_datuma/do_datuma/timestamp formats beyond the schema's terse labels.

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 resource with scope ('B2B / wholesale sales orders') and enumerates the ten action endpoints verbatim, so the agent knows exactly what surface it is calling. It also names the sibling it is not (luceed_recent_sales_orders), which helps disambiguation. It stops short of 5 because the action names are given as bare strings with no gloss (e.g. 'izmjena_status' reads as a status change, not a read).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for 'latest N orders' toward luceed_recent_sales_orders, and warns that statusi results require a status filter. That is real when-to-use/when-not guidance. It does not, however, distinguish this from other order-like siblings such as luceed_narudzbe or luceed_racuni_predujma.

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