M.Video FBS order list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'read' implies a safe, non-mutating operation, and the filter instruction adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any error conditions. This is a minimal but acceptable baseline.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Read FBS orders' is essentially a tautology of the tool name and title. Only the second sentence adds unique value about filter usage. Thus, the text is efficient but has some redundancy.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a relatively complex filter parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns, how pagination works, or any limitations (e.g., limit max). The description is too thin to be fully useful for an agent without additional inference.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'filter' parameter (pass as raw JSON object) but leaves 'limit' and 'cursor' unexplained. While 'limit' and 'cursor' are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, the description adds no syntax or default behavior information, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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's purpose: 'Read FBS orders.' The verb 'read' is specific and the resource 'FBS orders' is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like status list, labels, and shipment create, which are clearly different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. It only hints at how to pass filters ('when needed'), but does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no explicit context for tool selection.

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