ozon_min_price_timer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It contributes meaningful domain behavior: the timer lasts 30 days and expired timers expose goods to below-cost promos. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only status lookup, what status values are returned, or whether any side effects occur.

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 the purpose and the key 30-day scope. The Russian parenthetical is somewhat redundant, and '[P0]' does not help tool selection, but there is no rambling or unnecessary elaboration.

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 status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., active/expired status, remaining days) and how this relates to the sibling 'ozon_min_price_timer_renew'. It explains the domain context but omits operational details needed to interpret results or decide on the next action.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions 'product_id' or any constraints, batch limits, or accepted formats. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, but the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema already shows.

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 ('min price timer') and operation ('status') and adds useful context: a 30-day window and the consequence of expiry. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets/returns', and differentiation from the sibling 'ozon_min_price_timer_renew' is only implicit through the word 'status', so it is not 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?

The 30-day/expiry framing implies this tool is used to check whether a timer has expired and whether goods may be exposed to below-cost promos. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of 'ozon_min_price_timer_renew' or any alternatives/exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied.

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