ozon_returns_fbo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the exact endpoint and that the older returns/company API is disabled. But it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, side effects (expected none), or any account/permission requirements, which are relevant for an API list call.

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 succinct, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs in relevant migration/endpoint details. The parenthetical '(возвраты)' is mild filler, but overall the length is appropriate and every substantive phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nested filter object, the description is too thin. An agent could call the tool, but it lacks guidance on what filter keys are accepted, how pagination works, or what the response will look like. This is a notable gap for a list endpoint.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'filter' parameter is only described as 'filter', which is tautological, and 'limit' has no description at all. The description does not compensate for the undocumented filter object's possible fields or formats.

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 tool as a returns list endpoint and specifies that it unifies FBO and FBS returns. It also names the underlying API route, which helps confirm the resource. It is not a perfect 5 because it does not explicitly describe what fields or data are returned, but it is far from vague.

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 'Unified FBO+FBS returns list' implies this is the go-to tool for fetching returns across both fulfillment types, and the note that old returns/company endpoints are switched off gives migration context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like ozon_returns_fbs or ozon_returns_fbs_get, leaving some routing to inference.

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