ozon_analytics_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions metric categories (availability, scarcity, liquidity) but does not state that this is a read-only query, what the response looks like, whether pagination or rate limits apply, or whether it returns current snapshots or historical trends. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the SKU limit. The Russian parenthetical '(аналитика остатков)' is redundant but harmless. It is efficient and readable.

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?

The tool has low parameter complexity, but it has no output schema and no annotation context, so the description must do more to orient the agent. It gives some sense of the returned analytics, but it does not clarify how this differs from stock-on-warehouse tools, what timeframe or units are used, or what the response structure will be. The definition is incomplete for reliable selection among many similar siblings.

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 schema already documents the single 'skus' parameter as an array of integers for 1-100 SKUs. The description repeats the 1-100 limit and adds only the general context of 'specific goods,' so it does not meaningfully extend the parameter meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource ('stock analytics for specific goods' by SKU) and enumerates the analytical dimensions it covers: availability, scarcity, and liquidity. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like ozon_stock_on_warehouses or ozon_product_stocks, but the 'analytics' framing conveys a distinct purpose.

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 versus alternatives. Among dozens of sibling tools covering stock, warehouses, and analytics, the description provides no criteria for choosing this one over simpler stock lookups. The '1-100 SKU' constraint is a parameter bound, not usage context or exclusion criteria.

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