M.Video FBS order status list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read operation via 'Read', but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/cursor), return format, or the meaning of an 'order status update'. The cryptic 'OmniNet filter fields' hints at filter flexibility but fails to explain the schema or any side effects, falling short of transparency.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides a parameter hint. Every word earns its place, though the second sentence is slightly vague. It is concise and efficient, not verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, nested filter, no output schema) and the presence of several sibling order tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination, response structure, or how 'status updates' differ from historical order data. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It mentions the filter parameter as a raw JSON object with OmniNet fields, adding minimal meaning, but completely ignores limit and cursor. The nested filter structure is left undefined, making it difficult for the agent to construct valid calls.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource 'FBS order status updates', which immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like order_fbs_list (list of orders) and labels_get. The title reinforces the list nature. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 only usage hint is 'Pass OmniNet filter fields as a raw JSON object when needed', which addresses the filter parameter but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling order tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without 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.