ozon_degradations

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool reports steadily failing tools and interprets this as an API change, but it does not say whether the data is live or cached, how it is collected, or any limitations. The zero-parameter, diagnostic nature makes the risk low, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with a priority marker and the core purpose, followed by a clear statement of what the tool reports. The parenthetical Russian word and the redundant 'No parameters' add minor noise, but overall every sentence is brief and purposeful.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it reports (which MCP tools fail) and why that matters (signals an Ozon API change). It does not detail the output structure or data freshness, but the low complexity and lack of parameters make this a reasonably complete definition.

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?

The input schema already shows zero properties, and the description simply repeats 'No parameters', adding no new semantic information. With schema coverage at 100% and no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's subject ('Tool degradations') and its exact function: listing MCP tools that previously worked and now fail steadily, signalling an Ozon API change. This makes it unmistakably distinct from its many sibling tools, which all target specific Ozon business operations, while this is a meta/diagnostic tool.

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 [P0] prefix and the phrase 'signalling an Ozon API change' imply the intended use case (investigate when tools are failing), but the description never explicitly says when to call this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. 'No parameters' hints at a simple status check, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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