ozon_product_stocks_by_warehouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful operational context via the version/deprecation note ('v2; v1 is switched off 2026-04-07'). However, it does not state the read-only nature explicitly, nor disclose response format, pagination, or auth expectations.

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 a single compact line with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The Russian parenthetical is redundant for a bilingual audience but minor, and the version note earns its place as operational context.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It fails to clarify how the warehouse dimension is determined given no warehouse parameter, what the returned data looks like, and how this tool relates to the similarly scoped sibling ozon_stock_on_warehouses. The version note is the only extra context provided.

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 50% and the description adds zero parameter context. The 'skus' description is only the vague word 'filter', and 'limit' has no description; the tool text does not clarify that skus are Ozon SKU identifiers, what limit caps, or why no warehouse parameter exists despite the 'by_warehouse' name.

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 states a clear resource ('FBS stock per warehouse') with an implied read verb, and the 'FBS' qualifier narrows the scope relative to generic stock tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like ozon_stock_on_warehouses or ozon_product_stocks, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named even though siblings such as ozon_stock_on_warehouses and ozon_product_stocks overlap in domain. The version note (v1 switched off 2026-04-07) is deprecation timeline info, not usage direction, so an agent gets no routing help.

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