ozon_orders_fbs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains cursor pagination with has_next=true and repeating with the returned cursor, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, response shape, or what 'financial data' actually includes.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose; the pagination clarification is valuable and earns its place. The redundant Russian parenthetical 'заказы FBS' adds little, but overall the text is efficiently sized.

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 five parameters, the description should provide more operational context. It covers pagination but omits how since/to should be formatted, what fields are returned, how financial data is represented, and how this tool relates to the many sibling order tools.

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 40%: since and to have no schema descriptions, and limit is also unexplained. The description adds slight value by clarifying how cursor pagination works, but it does not compensate for the underdocumented required date parameters or explain their expected format.

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 clearly identifies the resource (FBS orders) and a distinguishing scope (financial data), which helps separate it from siblings like ozon_order_fbs_get, ozon_orders_fbs_unfulfilled, and ozon_orders_fbo. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', but the plural resource name and pagination note make the intended listing behavior clear.

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?

The phrase 'FBS orders with financial data' implies when the tool is relevant, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when not to use it. No sibling or condition is named, so an agent must infer the correct choice from resource naming alone.

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