ozon_actions_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only defines a product state rather than describing what the tool does when called. There is no mention of read-only behavior, return format, pagination, filtering, or side effects—an agent cannot predict the tool's runtime behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, the P0 prefix is nonfunctional, and the extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than effective economy; it is structured as a fragment, not a complete operational statement.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description must explain what the tool returns or how it behaves, but it only describes the subject matter. An agent cannot determine whether this returns a list of SKUs, details, counts, or requires further calls, making the definition incomplete.

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 already fully documents the single parameter action_id with 100% description coverage, so the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 identifies the resource—goods currently in an active promotion—but does not state a verb or explicit operation; the agent must infer "get/list" from the tool name. It does provide some scope differentiation with "already participating," which hints at a contrast with candidate tools, but the operation itself is left unstated.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like ozon_actions_candidates or ozon_actions_list. The phrase "already participating" weakly implies a distinction from candidates, but there is no direct mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the usage context to guesswork.

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