ozon_order_fbs_restrictions

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 explaining behavior. It discloses nothing about side effects, read-only status, required permissions, return format, or error conditions; it only restates the tool's subject area.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no verb, no parameter context, and no operational detail; the few words add almost no information beyond the already-expressive tool name.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single required input, the description needed to explain what restrictions are returned and how they relate to FBS postings. It provides none of that, leaving the tool's behavior almost entirely opaque.

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%, and the description does not mention the posting_number parameter at all. The schema only shows it is a required array of strings, but nothing explains what posting numbers are used for or how multiple values behave.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name in English and Russian ('FBS posting restrictions (ограничения отправлений)'). It names a resource but contains no verb indicating whether the tool retrieves, validates, or applies restrictions, so an agent cannot determine the actual operation.

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 versus alternative FBS order tools like ozon_order_fbs_get or ozon_order_fbs_ship. The description neither states a use case nor excludes other tools.

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