ozon_finance_realization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'report' weakly implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, period handling, or any constraints beyond month and year. It is not misleading, but it is nearly silent about actual 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 a single concise sentence with a helpful Russian parenthetical, containing no filler or redundant schema repetition. Its brevity is efficient, though some of that brevity contributes to under-specification.

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 report endpoint, this is minimally viable: an agent can supply month and year and know it is requesting a report. However, without an output schema or any note about what the realization report contains, and with no differentiation from several sibling finance endpoints, there are material gaps around expected results and tool selection.

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 schema documents month as 1-12 but gives no description for year. The word 'Monthly' reinforces that month and year select the report period, but the description adds no detail about year boundaries, defaults, or how the two parameters interact. With 50% schema coverage and simple integer params, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 resource as the monthly realization report and specifies version 2, with a Russian gloss that clarifies the domain meaning. It is specific enough to know what the tool addresses, though it does not differentiate the report from sibling finance-report tools such as finance_accruals or finance_totals.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling finance endpoints, no stated exclusions, and no description of what the realization report covers. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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