ozon_order_fbs_get

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but 'FBS posting details' only weakly implies a read operation. It does not state read-only behavior, required authorization, error/availability conditions, or what the response contains.

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 text is short and has no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than careful compression of useful content. It is not poorly organized because there is almost nothing to organize.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is missing the return shape, the semantics of the posting_number parameter, and any when-to-use guidance. Its simplicity prevents a score of 1, but it is not complete enough for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 only parameter, posting_number, is a self-describing identifier and is required in the schema, but the schema has no description for it and the tool description does not explain its format or that it selects the posting whose details are returned. The meaning is inferable, so this is minimally adequate rather than informative.

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 the target resource ('FBS posting' / 'отправление') and the kind of information ('details'), so an agent can tell this is about fetching detailed posting data. It is clear, but it relies on the tool name for the verb and does not distinguish it from sibling FBS order tools such as ozon_orders_fbs or ozon_order_fbs_ship.

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 invoke this tool, how it relates to ozon_orders_fbs / ozon_order_fbs_cancel / ozon_order_fbs_ship, or whether a posting_number must come from an earlier listing call. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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