ozon_order_fbs_act_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the resource and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the id represents, what statuses might be returned, or whether polling is required.

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 five words with zero fluff and the core concept front-loaded. The parenthetical Russian translation adds minor redundancy but is not harmful; the weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete for correct invocation: the semantics of 'id' are undefined, the relationship to act_create/act_pdf is unstated, and with no annotations there is no safety or behavior profile to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It never states that id refers to the handover act identifier, leaving the agent to guess whether id is an act id, order id, or shipment id.

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 identifies a specific resource — 'handover act generation status' — and, via the noun 'status', implies a read/check operation. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like ozon_order_fbs_act_create and ozon_order_fbs_act_pdf by being the status variant, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Check'.

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 call this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention that it should be used to poll after act creation, or that it precedes fetching the act PDF — an agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling list.

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