get_order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what pagination behavior exists, whether date filters are required or optional, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise - a one-line description that only states the basic purpose doesn't earn high marks for efficient communication since it omits essential behavioral and usage context.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate but doesn't. It's a read-oriented tool (implied by 'history') but provides no pagination details, date range semantics, or expected response information. For a retrieval tool with date parameter support and no annotation coverage, this is incomplete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (page, date_to, date_from) with Russian descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Получение истории заказов Деловых Линий' (Getting order history of Business Lines), which identifies the verb (получение/getting) and resource (история заказов/order history). However, it doesn't differentiate this from siblings like track or create_order beyond the obvious history purpose, and it's quite minimal.

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 is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings like track, calculate, and create_order exist but the description gives no context on when order history is appropriate versus tracking a single order. There's no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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