ozon_discount_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, does not describe pagination or ordering behavior, and offers no information about what the returned request objects contain. The status list is useful but is more parameter semantics than behavior.

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 and contains no filler. Every element — the resource type and the status options — is directly useful. The status list is front-loaded enough to immediately tell the agent what kind of filter is expected.

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 simple two-parameter list operation, the description provides enough to make a reasonable first call, especially since status values are listed. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the returned data looks like or how limit interacts with pagination. It also does not connect this tool to the discount approval workflow, which would help an agent understand its role among the sibling tools.

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 only 50%, with limit documented but status left undescribed. The description compensates by enumerating the allowed status values: NEW, SEEN, APPROVED, PARTLY_APPROVED, DECLINED, AUTO_DECLINED. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema for the status parameter, though it adds nothing about limit beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly: buyer 'want a discount' requests, and enumerates the relevant statuses. It does not use an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', but the plural noun plus status filter strongly implies a retrieval/list operation. It is distinguishable from sibling actions like ozon_discount_approve and ozon_discount_decline, though it does not name them.

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 description implies this tool is used to view buyer discount requests by status, which is a natural precursor to approving or declining them. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, and does not mention that approval/decline actions are the follow-up operations.

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