ozon_ad_bids_competitive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a 'max 200' limit, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what happens when more than 200 SKUs are passed, what the response contains, or whether any pagination or rate limiting applies.

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 short and front-loaded with the key concept, and the max limit adds useful information in few words. The parenthetical Russian translation is redundant for an English description but does not materially hurt clarity.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide enough context for safe invocation. It gives the core resource and inputs, but omits the response shape, read-only guarantees, failure behavior, and the precise meaning of the 200-item limit, leaving meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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%, but the parameter names campaign_id and skus are self-explanatory. The description reinforces the mapping by saying 'by SKU in a campaign.' However, it does not clarify whether 'max 200' applies to the number of SKUs, the number of returned bids, or something else.

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 a specific resource ('competitive bids by SKU in a campaign') and adds a concrete constraint ('max 200'), making the tool's intent mostly clear. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling ozon_ad_campaign_bids, but the word 'competitive' provides some differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as ozon_ad_campaign_bids or ozon_ad_min_bids. The description implies a use case but never states when it is appropriate or when an alternative should be chosen.

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