ozon_orders_fbo

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, and 'FBO orders' discloses nothing. It does not state whether this is a read operation, how the since/to range constrains results, whether limit paginates, or what data is returned. The description neither contradicts annotations (since none exist) nor adds any behavioral context.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single noun phrase duplicates information already present in the tool name and provides no distinct signal to the agent. There is no front-loaded key information to praise.

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 tool with two required date parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, 'FBO orders' is fundamentally inadequate. The agent cannot determine the operation, return shape, pagination behavior, or even the date-range semantics beyond the one schema hint. This falls far below the minimum bar for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% — only `since` has a format hint ('YYYY-MM-DDT00:00:00Z'), while `to` and `limit` are undocumented in the schema. With coverage below 50%, the description was expected to compensate, but it mentions no parameter at all. An agent cannot determine what range since/to define or how limit affects the result set.

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 'FBO orders (заказы FBO)' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name with a Russian translation. It never states the operation — an agent cannot tell whether this tool lists orders, retrieves one, or mutates something. With siblings like ozon_orders_fbs and ozon_order_fbo_get present, the intended 'list FBO orders' meaning is only guesswork from the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the FBO/FBS distinction, no pointer to ozon_orders_fbs for FBS orders, and no note that ozon_order_fbo_get exists for single-order lookups. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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