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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'получение', but it does not disclose response format, missing-ID behavior, or authorization requirements. Adequate for a simple getter, but with clear gaps.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'по ID' is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents its one parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes or how errors are surfaced. An agent can invoke it correctly but may not fully know what to expect in the result.

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% and the only parameter 'id' is already documented as 'ID заказа Kaspi'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Получение' = retrieving), a specific resource ('заказ Kaspi'), and a discriminator ('по ID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_orders (plural listing) and get_products.

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 'по ID' qualifier implies this is for single-order lookups, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_orders/get_products or mention any exclusions. Usage context must be inferred rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or describe the response format. For a list retrieval tool, it lacks essential behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and filtering options. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to the tool's function. Ideal length and structure for quick agent comprehension.

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?

The description is minimal and does not address important aspects like response format, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no idea what the returned list looks like. The 5-parameter tool with optional filters deserves more contextual guidance.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions filtering by status and date, which repeats what the schema already conveys, without adding any extra meaning, default behaviors, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb (getting) and resource (list of Kaspi orders) with filtering capabilities by status and date. It clearly differentiates from siblings by plurality (get_orders vs get_order) and resource type (orders vs products), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention that get_order is for a single order or that get_products is for products, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the name, not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or response behavior. There is no mention of pagination behavior, potential errors, or any constraints beyond what the schema shows.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list retrieval, but the absence of an output schema means the agent has no hint about the response format. It also does not mention that all parameters are optional or that pagination defaults exist, although the schema covers these. Still, for such a basic read operation, it is minimally sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the tool description adds no additional meaning. According to the rubric, a 3 is the baseline when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate further.

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 tool gets a list of seller's products on Kaspi, identifying both the verb and the resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools get_orders and get_order, which are order-focused, so an agent can tell them apart without extra context.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving products, and the sibling names make the distinction obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not formally stated.

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