ozon_finance_balance

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 disclose Beta status and the default 30-day window, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention any error or edge-case behavior. Thus it 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 key information is compressed into two short clauses and the default behavior is front-loaded. Minor redundancies like the '[P0]' priority tag and the trailing Russian translation '(баланс)' add noise without helping an agent invoke the tool.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the default date range and names the main return categories. It does not fully explain inclusive date semantics or timezone handling, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema only documents the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the behavior when both optional dates are omitted, which is the most important parameter-level detail an agent needs. This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

Identifies the resource (seller balance), the time period, and the included components (opening/closing, accruals, payouts). It is clearly a retrieval operation even without an explicit verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling finance tools like transactions or cash flow, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives an actionable default rule: 'No dates = last 30 days,' which tells the agent how to invoke it without parameters. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling finance tools, so the selection context is only implied.

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