ozon_pricing_strategy_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Details' weakly implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only intent, what is returned, or any limitations. It is not misleading, but it is far from transparent.

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 text is short, front-loaded, and free of fluff, but the brevity is mostly a result of under-specification rather than dense useful wording. It is minimally acceptable for a one-line description.

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?

A simple one-parameter read endpoint does not require an extensive description, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what 'details' includes and that the call is non-mutating. It gives only the domain and leaves usage and output semantics 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the required strategy_id parameter; it does not mention it at all. The description adds no meaning about the parameter's format, source, or role beyond the parameter name itself.

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 paraphrases the tool name without adding operational content: 'info' becomes 'details' and 'детали стратегии' adds nothing. It names the resource but never states the action (retrieve/get), and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like ozon_pricing_strategy_list, _status, or _products.

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 pricing-strategy siblings. No use cases, prerequisites, or alternative-tool mentions are provided, so the agent must guess whether to call info, list, status, or products.

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