ozon_returns_fbs_get

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. It only says 'details,' which suggests retrieval but does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, what the response contains, whether there are side effects, or any rate/auth constraints. This is too thin for a tool with no schema annotations.

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 and front-loaded: one phrase names the resource and the kind of data returned. It has no filler, though it reads more like a label than a structured description.

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 and no annotations, an agent only learns that this tool provides 'details,' leaving response structure, errors, and relationship to other return tools unaddressed. The single-parameter schema reduces complexity, but the description still under-specifies a callable tool.

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 has one parameter, return_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it. The parameter is fairly self-descriptive, but the description adds no format, meaning, or usage detail beyond what the property name already conveys.

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 return claim') and the action ('details'/'детали заявки'), so an agent can tell this is a read operation for a single return claim. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ozon_returns_fbs, ozon_returns_fbs_approve, or ozon_returns_fbs_reject, but 'details' at least separates it from list/action tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_returns_fbs or ozon_returns_fbs_approve. The word 'details' weakly implies the intended use case, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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