ozon_chat_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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data the chat list contains, how pagination behaves, or what authorization is needed. The unread_only hint adds some semantic context but overlaps with the parameter schema.

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 short and free of filler, and it leads with the resource name. However, it is a fragment plus one parameter hint rather than a complete, self-contained explanation, so the brevity sacrifices useful 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 annotations, no output schema, and a large family of similar chat siblings, this description is not complete enough. It omits what the returned chat list looks like, how page_size works, and when to select this tool over chat_history or chat_updates. An agent could invoke it but would remain uncertain about the result shape and alternatives.

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 the bare parameter names. It clarifies unread_only=true filters for unread chats, but says nothing about page_size, its default, bounds, or pagination behavior.

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 ('Buyer chats (v3)') but never uses an explicit verb like 'list', so the action mostly comes from the tool name. It also does not differentiate this tool from the sibling chat tools such as ozon_chat_history and ozon_chat_updates, leaving an agent to infer the exact scope.

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 only usage guidance is 'unread_only=true for unread ones', which describes a filter option rather than when to choose this tool. No mention is made of when to prefer chat_history, chat_updates, or chat_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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