ozon_ad_campaign_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states what the campaign contains rather than what the tool does. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, requires special authorization, or has side effects like creating or modifying objects.

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 concise and avoids filler, with the key resource phrase front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it names a resource without stating an action, so brevity comes at the cost of 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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, this description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not say whether the result is a list, what fields are returned, or how the goods and bids are structured.

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 input schema documents a single required campaign_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The phrase 'inside an ad campaign' weakly ties campaign_id to the campaign context, but it does not specify what format or identifier is expected or that campaign_id selects the campaign whose goods and bids are returned.

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 as goods and bids within an ad campaign, which adds meaning beyond the tool name and hints at a combined product/bid view. However, it lacks a verb, so an agent cannot tell whether this fetches, updates, or manages those objects.

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 given on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as ozon_ad_campaign_products or ozon_ad_campaign_bids. The only contextual clue is 'inside an ad campaign', which is not enough to select among the many ad-campaign tools.

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