ozon_supply_order_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by specifying FBO supply orders and the '1-50' batch limitation, which is beyond what the schema states. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving the transparency incomplete.

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 resource type. The '1-50' fragment is cryptic but does not add unnecessary words. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it sacrifices useful detail.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to carry more weight. It identifies the resource and a rough batch limit but omits important context such as what identifiers order_ids refers to, what fields of supply details are returned, and how failures or invalid IDs are handled. This is insufficient for confident invocation in an unfamiliar context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explains that order_ids are FBO/supply order identifiers or what format they take. The '1-50' phrase weakly suggests a maximum number of IDs, but that is not explicitly tied to the order_ids parameter. An agent would still be guessing about the exact semantics of the array.

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 the resource as FBO supply order details, and 'get' in the tool name supplies the verb, so an agent can infer this is a retrieval operation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like ozon_supply_orders, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives. The meaning is somewhat terse but not ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related supply-order tools such as ozon_supply_orders or ozon_supply_order_counters. The phrase '1-50' hints at a request size limit, but it is not framed as usage guidance. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternatives mentioned.

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