ozon_actions_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral warning that goods in promos can sell below cost, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe side effects, or clarify what 'pulled in' implies. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded. The '[P0]' prefix is likely internal priority metadata and adds noise, but the rest is efficient and the Russian gloss is helpful.

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?

For a simple tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and a critical risk. However, it omits details about response format and what 'may be pulled in' concretely means, so an agent has only a partial picture.

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 100%, and the single 'view' parameter is fully documented with an enum and explanatory description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but full schema coverage makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 Ozon promotions available now and which goods may be pulled in, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like ozon_actions_candidates or ozon_actions_products, leaving some distinction to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointer to alternative tools. 'Available now' implies a time-sensitive listing, but the description does not say when to choose this tool over similar action-related siblings.

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