Заказ пополнения или ваучеров

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an order and imposes a source constraint (item must come from catalog with same payment), but it does not describe side effects, idempotency, payment flow, error cases, or the response shape. For a mutating create operation, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the catalog pointer is the only additional guidance, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite a nested payload with additionalProperties:true and no output schema, the description provides only the core purpose and a catalog prerequisite. It omits the expected payload field formats, whether order creation is synchronous or requires confirmation, and what the response contains. This is insufficient for confident first-time invocation of a create-order endpoint.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful cross-tool semantic: the payment value must match the catalog position fetched from wata_dg_catalog. It does not, however, clarify the exact structure of the nested payload beyond what the schema's generic 'позиция, количество, ваш orderId' already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Создаёт заказ на покупку игровой позиции (topup) или ваучеров' – creates a purchase order for topup or vouchers. It clearly identifies the operation and scope, and the second sentence points to the catalog source. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling order-creation tools like wata_dg_steam_order_create or wata_dg_stars_order_create, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 second sentence, 'Позицию берите из wata_dg_catalog с тем же значением payment', gives a concrete prerequisite: fetch the item from the catalog with a matching payment value. This is clear procedural context for calling the tool correctly. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but the catalog instruction covers the main setup step.

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