ozon_ad_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does well by revealing the async nature, approximate latency of 2 minutes, concurrency limit of one report, and campaign/date-range caps. It does not describe the return shape, but it discloses several important runtime behaviors beyond what the schema shows.

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 compact, front-loaded with the priority marker and purpose, and every sentence carries substantive information. There is no fluff or repetition beyond the parenthetical Russian label, which is minor.

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?

Even though the description gives strong constraints, the tool is async with no output schema and no explanation of what the report response contains, how the async flow resolves, or what group_by values are valid. An agent is left with significant uncertainty about calling the tool successfully and interpreting its result.

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 50%, and the description adds useful semantics for campaigns and date range by stating maximum limits. However, group_by remains unexplained, and date_to is only implicitly covered by the overall day-limit constraint, so parameter understanding is only partial.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing campaign statistics via an async Ozon report, with explicit operational limits. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ozon_ad_statistics_daily or ozon_ad_statistics_expenses, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description provides practical usage constraints: max 10 campaigns, max 62 days, and one report at a time. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the more specific sibling statistics tools, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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