ozon_finance_totals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the recomputation behavior, the retirement of the underlying endpoint, and the 31-day maximum period, which are important non-obvious traits. It stops short of describing output shape or error conditions, but this is adequate for a simple read-style report tool.

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, starting with the purpose and then adding the two most important behavioral constraints. Every phrase earns its place, including the P0 priority marker, the derivation note, and the endpoint retirement context.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation needs: what is returned, how it is computed, and the period limit. Minor gaps such as exact date formatting and response structure remain, but the description is largely complete for its complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. The parameter names date_from and date_to are self-explanatory, and the description adds the meaningful constraint of max 31 days per call. However, it does not specify date format, inclusivity, or timezone behavior.

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 states what the tool provides: period finance totals aggregated by accrual category and service type_id. It names the specific resource and distinguishes itself from sibling finance tools like transactions, accruals, and balance reports.

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 provides clear operational context: totals are recomputed from daily accruals, the original totals endpoint was retired, and calls are limited to 31 days. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the constraints are directly usable for correct invocation.

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