luceed_narudzbe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that 'izmjena_status' is a mutation while the other actions are reads, nor any permission requirements, side effects of status changes, date-range defaults, or pagination behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource, but the first clause is redundant, restating the name twice, and the action list is packed without structure or explanation. Roughly half the text is wasted repetition rather than useful signal.

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?

This is a 10-parameter multi-action dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema. The agent needs to know how each action maps to its parameters and what it returns; the description supplies none of that, leaving the tool effectively undocumented for correct invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the action enum values, adding no meaning about which parameters pair with which action (e.g. partner/godina/od_datuma for 'partner_statusi').

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 identifies the resource (purchase orders / narudžbe) and a general function (retrieve and status changes), but opens with a near-tautology, 'Purchase orders (narudžbe): Purchase orders'. The seven action names are listed but never characterized, so an agent cannot tell what 'statusi' versus 'partner_statusi' versus 'zaprimljene_kolicine' actually returns.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like luceed_recent_sales_orders, luceed_nalozi_prodaje, or luceed_nalozi_povrata, nor which action to pick for a given intent. The action list is a bare enumeration with no selection criteria.

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