ozon_carriage_delivery_list

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 says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup (only the name suggests it), how pagination behaves via limit/offset, what the response contains, or whether results are ordered or filtered. An agent gets no behavioral context beyond the resource name.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first names the resource, the second states its downstream purpose. This is efficient, though the first clause is a noun fragment rather than a complete tool-purpose sentence, so it could be slightly more structured.

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 simple list tool with 2 pagination parameters this is minimally adequate: it names the resource and connects to ozon_carriage_create. But with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any response-shape or parameter-behavior information leaves notable gaps, and the relationship to the near-sibling ozon_delivery_methods is never addressed.

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 never mentions limit or offset. These are conventional pagination parameters whose names are self-explanatory, but the description adds zero meaning about how they apply to this specific listing — for example, whether offset paginates across delivery methods, carriages, or both.

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 as delivery methods and their carriages with a Russian gloss, and clarifies the tool's role as the source of delivery_method_id for ozon_carriage_create — this gives an agent a concrete sense of what the tool returns and how it fits the workflow. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb ('Lists...'), so the action is only implied by the tool name.

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 statement 'Source of delivery_method_id for ozon_carriage_create' implies a use case: call this before creating a carriage to obtain a valid delivery_method_id. But it never explicitly contrasts this with the sibling ozon_delivery_methods, nor states when not to use it, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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