ozon_list_shops

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. It discloses the output fields (shop_id + name) and scope (registered shops), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or response envelope. For a simple zero-parameter read this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first is front-loaded with what the tool returns, the second states why it matters. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool, the essentials are present: what it returns and why it matters. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of shop_id and name is valuable. Minor gaps (no mention of pagination or read-only behavior) are low-cost given the tool's low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies. The description adds a useful output contract (shop_id + name) that the agent cannot get from the empty input schema or the missing output schema.

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 names the specific resource (registered Ozon shops, glossed as 'магазины') and the data returned (shop_id + name). It is the only tool among the large sibling set that enumerates shops, so it distinguishes itself without naming a sibling. It falls short of a 5 because the verb is implied ('Registered Ozon shops' is a noun phrase) rather than an explicit 'lists' or 'returns'.

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?

'Use shop_id in all other tools' explicitly frames this as the entry-point tool whose output feeds every other operation, giving a clear when-to-call signal. No sibling tool lists shops, so there is no alternative to exclude; the guidance is appropriate for that context.

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