ozon_category_attribute_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely names the resource and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or limits apply, what data is returned, or any side effects. The agent is left with no behavioral information beyond the tool's 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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The English phrase and Russian translation repeat the same idea, adding no distinct information, and the single sentence does not earn its place by conveying actionable content.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description provides almost none of the context needed to invoke this tool correctly. An agent does not know what the response looks like, how limit behaves, or how description_category_id and attribute_id should be obtained.

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: description_category_id, attribute_id, and limit. It does not mention any of them or explain how they relate to the returned attribute values, leaving their meaning entirely to schema field 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 identifies the resource as category attribute values and provides the Russian translation, which makes the basic purpose reasonably clear in the context of the Ozon API. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction, and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ozon_category_attributes or ozon_category_attribute_search.

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 whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_category_attributes or ozon_category_attribute_search. The description gives no context about which scenario requires attribute values specifically.

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