ozon_get_fbs_unfulfilled

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's claim of listing data is consistent)Skip. The description does not add much beyond the annotation: it notes the 'new/unprocessed' status and the response format, but doesn't detail auth requirements or quirks. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a brief Args section and a one-line return format. Some redundancy exists with schema (e.g., limit/offset names), but the docstring format is efficient.

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?

Has an output schema which reduces need to explain return values, but parameter semantics are incomplete. For a data-retrieval tool, missing pagination details (like limit range) and lack of prerequisites (e.g., auth) mean the agent may not invoke correctly. Overall, moderate completeness for a read-only, simple listing 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains cutoff_from/to as datetime bounds but does not describe limit and offset beyond names. It suggests pagination but lacks details on defaults or ranges. This is inadequate given 4 parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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 states the tool lists new/unprocessed FBS shipments awaiting assembly, which is specific and distinct from siblings like wb_get_new_orders or ym_get_orders. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (FBS shipments).

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 description implies usage for filtering unfulfilled FBS orders by date range, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools, nor when not to use it. It provides no alternatives or conditions for choosing a different tool.

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