Статус заказа (topup или ваучеры)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add useful behavior: voucher codes are returned for acquiring-paid voucher orders, and the read-only nature is suggested by 'проверяет'. It does not disclose response shape, error cases, or required permissions, leaving meaningful 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary status-checking purpose; the second sentence adds the notable voucher-code behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present, but the absence of an output schema and thin behavioral disclosure mean the description does not fully compensate for missing return-value documentation. It is adequate for a straightforward call but leaves the caller to guess at status values and edge cases.

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 both enums carry descriptions, so the schema already documents id, payment, and kind well. The description adds the relationship that kind is relevant to acquiring-paid voucher orders, which slightly enriches the enum semantics.

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 names a concrete operation (проверяет статус заказа) and the title scopes it to topup/voucher orders, which is enough to identify the resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling order-status tools such as wata_dg_steam_order_get or wata_digital_goods_order_get, so differentiation is partial.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use instructions and names no alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage for checking order status and for obtaining voucher codes, but the agent must infer this from the title rather than from direct guidance.

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