ozon_ad_statistics_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the synchronous execution behavior and metric scope, but does not mention any campaign filtering constraints, date range limitations, response format, or whether this is read-only. The '[P0]' tag is ambiguous — it could indicate priority, time window, or severity — and is not explained.

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?

One short sentence plus a parenthetical, no filler words. The core resource (CPC campaign product statistics) and key metrics are front-loaded. However, the Russian phrase adds little for an English-speaking agent and the '[P0]' token is cryptic, so it is not perfectly lean.

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 read-oriented statistics tool with a simple flat schema, the description states the resource, scope, and key output metrics, which is adequate. But with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, an agent still lacks critical invocation details such as date format and campaign ID expectations, so completeness is only partial.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. The description says statistics are 'per product' for 'CPC campaigns', which maps roughly to 'campaigns', but it does not explain date_from/date_to formats, that campaigns is an array of campaign IDs, or any constraints. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it fetches CPC campaign statistics per product, listing the metrics (spend, CTR, CPC, orders, ДРР). It clearly distinguishes itself from the broader ozon_ad_statistics and daily/expense variants, though the Russian phrase 'статистика по товарам' is somewhat redundant.

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 '[P0]' prefix signals priority and the 'Synchronous' note implies immediate execution, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over ozon_ad_statistics, ozon_ad_statistics_daily, or ozon_ad_statistics_expenses. The metric list and 'per product' phrasing imply use cases, but no direct comparison or exclusions are stated.

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