ozon_ad_campaign_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the content ('goods and bids') and scope ('in a campaign'), without stating that it is a get/list operation, how pagination works, or whether it has side effects.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The Russian parenthetical is redundant and no essential operational detail is included.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented page parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not communicate return structure, pagination behavior, or the selection semantics needed to invoke it correctly.

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 adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The word 'campaign' only restates campaign_id, and the page parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 belonging to a campaign, but it contains no verb to signal read versus write behavior. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like ozon_ad_campaign_objects or ozon_ad_campaign_bids.

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 statement of when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. With many ad-campaign sibling tools, an agent cannot tell whether this should be chosen over related tools for products, bids, or campaign objects.

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