ozon_returns_fbs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only listing, what data is returned, whether pagination is applied, or what statuses/fields are included. The only behavioral hint is the 'need a seller decision' filter, which is useful but insufficient.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential resource and filter, and the Russian gloss adds minor clarity without bloating the text.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the core idea is captured: rFBS returns awaiting seller decision. However, the absence of an explicit 'list/read' verb and any note about return shape, limit behavior, or relationship to approve/reject tools leaves the description merely adequate rather than complete.

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 input schema has one parameter, `limit`, with a default of 100, but schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. The meaning of `limit` is somewhat inferable from its name and type, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation as the rubric requires.

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 identifies a specific resource (rFBS buyer return claims) and a specific state (those needing a seller decision), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_returns_fbs_get, ozon_returns_fbs_approve, and ozon_returns_fbs_reject. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action like 'List' or 'Get', so the operation is only implied.

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 'need a seller decision' implies the tool is for viewing claims awaiting action, which provides some usage context relative to approve/reject siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention what to do after retrieving the claims.

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