ozon_ad_campaign_budget

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. It does add a useful non-obvious fact: the budget is sourced from the campaign list rather than a dedicated endpoint. However, it does not disclose return format, side effects, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 concise sentence with the key point front-loaded. The parenthetical Russian phrase is redundant with the English text, but this is a minor inefficiency.

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 one-parameter read-oriented tool, the description gives adequate context about the data source. However, with no output schema and no description of what the tool returns, an agent cannot fully anticipate the result shape or units of the budget value.

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%, and the description does not explain campaign_id beyond what the parameter name already conveys. Since the description adds no value to the parameter semantics, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 (campaign budget) and its provenance (taken from the campaign list), which makes the tool's function reasonably clear as a read/retrieval operation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but it is not tautological and is distinguishable from sibling tools like ozon_ad_campaign_budget_update.

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 statement 'Ozon has no separate endpoint' explains why this tool exists and implies it is the way to obtain campaign budget data. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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