ozon_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals it makes 'light real requests across 12 Seller API categories', indicating live network activity, and explains the diagnostic purpose. However, it doesn't disclose return format, potential side effects, auth needs, or rate-limit impact.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with the priority label '[P0]' and the trigger condition first. Every clause adds distinct information; the Russian parenthetical is redundant but harmless.

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-param, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description covers what it checks, that it makes live requests, and when to run it. It does not describe the result format or how to interpret failure output, but that gap is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning the description must add. Schema coverage is effectively complete and the description is not required to document arguments.

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?

Description names a specific verb+resource: full self-diagnostics, and concretely enumerates what it covers: host availability, light real requests across 12 Seller API categories, Performance API key check. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling Ozon tools by being the diagnostics entry point.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Run FIRST when a tool misbehaves — separates a key problem from a category or Ozon API change'. It gives a clear context and diagnostic decision logic, though it does not name specific alternative tools or say when not to use it.

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