ozon_finance_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the daily-accrual data source and the 31-day cap, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the response contains, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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 with a priority marker and domain category. It contains no filler and gets to the key constraint quickly, though it could be improved by adding an explicit action verb.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent needs more context about return values, pagination, filter options, and how this tool differs from finance siblings. The current description only covers the date-window constraint and data source, leaving several invocation-critical details unspecified.

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 only 50%; date_to, page, and page_size have no schema descriptions. The description adds the valuable max-31-days constraint for the date range, but it does not explain the date_to format, pagination behavior, or valid operation_type values. It only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 domain — financial transactions/expenses covering commissions, logistics, storage, and returns — so it is not a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not differentiate this tool from sibling finance tools such as ozon_finance_accruals or ozon_finance_realization.

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 gives a concrete usage constraint: max 31 days per call because the period endpoint was retired. But it does not explain when to choose this tool over the many other finance siblings, nor mention any exclusions or alternative routing. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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