orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real content beyond the (empty) schema by telling the agent that cancellation effects and deadlines are surfaced alongside the orders, which matters before calling cancel_meal. However, it never states that this is a guaranteed read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor does it describe scope or any auth requirement, which is the key gap for an unannotated tool.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, but the trailing 'with cancellation effects/deadlines' is compressed to the point of ambiguity, so it reads as under-specified in places rather than maximally tight.

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 output schema already covers return shape and there are no parameters, so much of the burden is lifted. What remains unexplained is behavioral: whether the call is read-only, what 'burza offers' refers to, and what 'cancellation effects' actually means in the response — enough gaps that an agent knows the tool's topic but not its full contract.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline rule this sits at 4. Nothing in the description falsely implies filtering options that do not exist.

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 verb ('List') and two concrete resources ('current meal orders' and 'own burza offers'), plus the ancillary cancellation/deadline info returned. It is distinguishable from history-oriented siblings such as meal_history and from mutating siblings such as cancel_meal, though the jargon 'burza' and the ambiguous 'cancellation effects' leave small gaps.

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 word 'current' implies this is the live-state counterpart to meal_history, but that routing is left to inference rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this when…' sentence and no mention of prerequisites or when a different sibling (e.g. minutkas, balance) is the better call.

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