ozon_product_queries

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the Premium access requirement — a genuine behavioral constraint that could cause failures if the seller lacks the subscription. However, it does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation, describe what the response contains beyond 'queries and positions,' or note any limits on the date range. The read-only status is strongly implied by the parameter set and wording but never stated.

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 core purpose and priority marker. The Russian parenthetical is redundant for an English-reading agent but harmless, and 'Visibility drives sales' earns its place as concise business context. Minor waste only in the duplicated translation.

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 three-parameter report tool this is adequate: the description names the output concept (queries and positions), flags the Premium gate, and the schema covers the parameter mechanics. But since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral info, and it leaves gaps: the shape of the returned positions, whether results are sorted/aggregated, and the meaning of the 'details' toggle are all underspecified.

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 67%, with skus lacking any schema description, date_from only given a format, and details having a terse explanation. The description adds meaning by clarifying that skus refer to the seller's own goods ('my goods') and that the data is search-position reporting over time. It partially compensates for the schema gap but never explicitly maps each parameter or explains the date_from semantics.

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 a specific resource — search queries and positions in Ozon search for the seller's own goods — which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like ozon_search_queries_top (top queries) and ozon_analytics. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase ('Search queries and positions...') rather than an explicit verb+resource construction ('Retrieve search queries and positions...'), so the action is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Visibility drives sales' provides a business rationale that implies when to use the tool (when monitoring search visibility), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the closest sibling ozon_search_queries_top. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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