ozon_ad_statistics_expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is represented ('spend') and does not describe output format, aggregation, date-range handling, or whether campaign IDs are required.

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 one-line description is short and front-loaded with the core concept, so there is no wasted text. However, the phrasing is a bare noun phrase rather than a structured instruction, and the English/Russian duplication adds little structure.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large cluster of ad-statistics siblings, the description is not complete enough. It states the metric but omits scope, return shape, and selection criteria.

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 compensate: it does not explain date_from, date_to, or campaigns, their formats, or their roles. This is a 3-parameter tool with no parameter-level help beyond the raw names.

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 resource and metric: ad campaign spend (расходы на рекламу). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ozon_ad_statistics or ozon_ad_statistics_daily, so it misses the top anchor.

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 on when to use this tool instead of the many related ad-statistics siblings (ozon_ad_statistics, ozon_ad_statistics_daily, ozon_ad_statistics_products). No contexts, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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