Счётчики заказов цифровых товаров

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral information, and it does indicate a read-only counting operation rather than a mutation. However, it does not disclose response shape, whether zero-count statuses are included, or how date bounds are handled in the aggregation, leaving some ambiguity in behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core value (count by status). There is no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for its simple two-parameter interface.

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 simple optional date parameters, the definition omits any output specification (no output schema and no description of the returned status-to-count mapping) and provides no routing context among the many sibling count/list tools. An agent lacks enough context to confidently decide to call this vs. wata_digital_goods_orders or wata_transactions_counts.

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 already fully describes both parameters ('Конец периода' and 'Начало периода' with YYYY-MM-DD format), so the description carries no parameter-level burden. It also adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score for 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?

The description specifies that the tool returns the count of digital goods orders broken down by status, which is a concrete, unambiguous resource and grouping. It adds the 'по статусам' dimension that the title only implies, distinguishing it from the plain order-list sibling wata_digital_goods_orders, though it lacks an explicit action verb like '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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as wata_digital_goods_orders, wata_subscriptions_counts, or wata_transactions_counts. No exclusions, prerequisites, or 'prefer this for aggregate stats' hints are provided, so the agent must infer use from the name and one-line description.

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