ozon_product_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives minimal information about the visibility filter values but does not say whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, what fields are returned, or what 'and others' includes. This is a substantial gap for a catalog-listing endpoint.

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 short and puts the core scope ('All goods') first, which is good. However, the parenthetical Russian phrase '(список товаров)' redundantly restates 'All goods', and the 'and others' is vague rather than informative, so a couple of words are wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out essential operational context: return type, pagination behavior, meaning of 'others', and relationship to product-info tools. For a tool with only two optional parameters the description is adequate as a label, but it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 only 50%: limit has no description, while visibility has a basic enum-like description. The tool description repeats the visibility values, adding little beyond the schema, and completely ignores the limit parameter. Since coverage is below 50%, the description needed to explain limit and enrich the visibility semantics, but it does not.

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 says 'All goods' and 'список товаров' ('product list'), which conveys that this is a list operation over the product catalog, and it names the visibility filter values. However, it never states an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and it does not distinguish the tool from product-related siblings such as ozon_product_info or ozon_product_discounted beyond the general list idea.

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 versus alternatives. With dozens of product-related sibling tools, an agent is given no criteria such as 'use this for catalog listing, use ozon_product_info for a single product's details.' The description only states what the tool returns at a high level, not when it should be chosen.

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