ozon_cancellation_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only listing, what data is returned, whether pagination applies, or how the state defaults behave beyond the schema. The state enumeration is useful but not sufficient behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core resource, and has no unnecessary filler. The state list and Russian clarification add useful information without bloating the text.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for understanding the tool's behavior. It omits return structure, pagination behavior, and the practical meaning of each cancellation state, leaving an agent with only a minimal picture of what will happen when invoked.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates for the state parameter by enumerating its allowed values, which is genuinely valuable. However, the limit parameter is not described and posting_number is only labeled as 'filter', so parameter understanding remains incomplete.

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 clearly as buyer cancellation claims and adds the v2 marker, while the tool name supplies the 'list' verb. It is distinguishable from the cancellation approve/reject siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ozon_cancellation_approve or ozon_cancellation_reject. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and the claim that it covers cancellation claims.

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