ozon_orders_fbs_unfulfilled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully discloses the data scope, status filters, time limit, and cursor pagination behavior. It does not describe the response shape or explicitly note that this is a read-only operation, but enough context is provided for safe use.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important information: resource, statuses, time range, and pagination. The parenthetical Russian phrase is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 simple listing tool, it covers the essential selection criteria and pagination behavior. The absence of an output schema means return fields are not documented, but the tool can still be invoked correctly with the information provided.

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 schema already documents cursor as a next-page token, and the description adds the behavioral condition that pagination applies when has_next=true. However, the limit parameter is only given a default value and no additional guidance is provided about its acceptable range or effect.

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 names a specific resource (FBS orders) and state (unfulfilled, awaiting packaging) and further narrows it with explicit statuses and a time window. This clearly differentiates it from broader siblings like ozon_orders_fbs and single-order tools like ozon_order_fbs_get.

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?

It provides clear retrieval context by specifying statuses, the 30-day window, and cursor pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over ozon_orders_fbs or mention conditions where it should not be used.

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