ozon_category_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only names the resource and reveals nothing about side effects, read-only vs. write behavior, return format, error cases, or required authorization. The agent has no information about what invoking this tool actually does.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'Category attributes (атрибуты категории)' is redundant with the tool name and provides no useful information, so the single sentence does not earn its place in a helpful definition.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a two-parameter input schema, the description needed to explain what the tool returns, how the parameters relate to category attributes, and how it differs from nearby category-related tools. None of that context is present, so the definition is inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 provides no explanation of description_category_id or type_id. The schema names give some hint of meaning, but the description adds no value beyond the raw property names and types. For a low-coverage schema, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 repeats the tool name almost verbatim ('Category attributes') and adds only a Russian translation. It names a resource but no verb, so an agent cannot tell whether this tool retrieves, searches, or manages category attributes. It also provides no differentiation from closely related siblings like ozon_category_attribute_values 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 about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative should be chosen instead. Siblings such as ozon_category_attribute_values and ozon_category_attribute_search exist, but the description does not help an agent distinguish their purposes or choose among them.

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