ozon_product_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool concerns FBO/FBS stock but does not state whether this is a read-only listing, whether filters are required, whether pagination applies, or what kind of response to expect. This is minimal context for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 very short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A single noun-phrase conveys the core topic but omits essential usage and behavior details, so conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

This is a simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, but close siblings like ozon_stock_on_warehouses, ozon_product_stocks_by_warehouse, and ozon_analytics_stocks create real selection risk. The description is too thin to disambiguate these paths or to tell the agent what the tool actually returns, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 should compensate for the undocumented 'limit', 'offer_id', and 'product_id' parameters. It does not. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaning about how filtering by offer_id or product_id behaves, or how limit interacts with the results.

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 resource ('product stock') and the scope ('FBO/FBS warehouses'), so an agent can tell this is a stock-reading tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'lists,' and it does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as ozon_stock_on_warehouses or ozon_product_stocks_by_warehouse.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many stock-related siblings exist, the absence of any 'use this when...' or 'for warehouse-level stock use...' guidance leaves the agent to guess which stock tool fits the task.

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