Статус заявки на фиатный вывод

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only restates the purpose (status check) without disclosing read-only nature, error behavior, rate limits, or response format. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Zero waste. It is concise and to the point.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not explain what the returned status looks like or any edge cases (e.g., order not found). Given the simplicity, it is acceptable but could be richer.

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% (orderId described as 'Идентификатор заявки'). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantics are needed.

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 states the action ('current status') and the resource ('previously created request'). While it doesn't explicitly mention 'fiat withdrawal', the tool name includes 'fiat_order_get', so the resource is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like wata_dg_steam_order_get via the name, but the description itself could be more specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many other 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., wata_transaction_get, wata_dg_order_get). It does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The only hint is the name, which the description does not reinforce.

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