Заказы цифровых товаров

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a list or a single item, or any pagination or sorting behavior. The date-range parameters are not described in the description either. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs a read operation with optional filtering.

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, concise sentence that names the core domain and categories. It is efficient and contains no filler, though it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'list orders'). It is front-loaded with the domain, which is acceptable, but it lacks a verb that clearly indicates retrieval.

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 has 4 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, so the description must explain the purpose and return value. It only states the domain without clarifying that it returns a list of orders, how pagination works, or what filters are available. For a listing tool with no annotations, this is under-specified and would leave an agent uncertain about the expected 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%—all four parameters (to, from, skipCount, maxResultCount) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as how date filters interact or the default result count. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 the resource ('orders') and the domain ('digital goods') with specific categories (Steam, Telegram Stars, top-ups, vouchers). It distinguishes from the more specific sibling tools (like wata_dg_steam_order_create) by being a general listing, though it doesn't explicitly say 'list' or 'fetch'. The title and parameters imply a listing operation, so the purpose is mostly clear.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many order-related siblings (e.g., wata_digital_goods_order_get, wata_dg_order_get). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer that this is for batch listing rather than single-order retrieval. This is a significant gap for a tool with many close relatives.

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