ozon_actions_candidates

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a check rather than a mutation, which is useful, but it does not state whether it is read-only, what it returns, whether pagination applies, or any other behavioral constraints.

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 a single compact line that front-loads the core meaning and includes a useful behavioral clue ('pre-emptive check'). Every word earns its place, and the P0 marker adds prioritization context without bloat.

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 is simple: one required parameter with a helpful schema description and no nested objects. The description explains what 'candidates' means, which is the main ambiguity. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the result looks like or how it relates to the action lifecycle, the context is only minimally complete.

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 only parameter, action_id, already has a descriptive schema comment ('action id from ozon_actions_list'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the resource: candidate goods that Ozon plans to pull into a promotion, and gives the purpose: a pre-emptive check against selling at a loss. It is not tautological and adds meaning beyond the tool name, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not fully distinguish itself from the similar sibling ozon_action_auto_add_candidates.

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 alternatives such as ozon_actions_products or ozon_action_auto_add_candidates. The phrase 'pre-emptive check' implies a use case, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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