ozon_questions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what data is returned, or what side effects may occur. The bare noun phrase provides no behavioral information at all.

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 brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The English phrase and the Russian parenthetical say the same thing, adding redundancy without adding operational value.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. The tool needs at least one clear sentence stating that it fetches buyer questions and how the two parameters govern that fetch; instead, only the resource name is supplied.

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% and the description adds no parameter context. The two parameters, limit and last_id, are entirely unexplained in the description; in particular, last_id's role as a pagination cursor or identifier is left ambiguous, and a 0% coverage description must compensate for this but 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 is only a noun phrase, 'Buyer questions,' which essentially restates the tool name 'ozon_questions' without adding a verb or operation. It does not clarify whether the tool lists, retrieves, or manages questions, leaving the agent to infer the behavior from the limit/last_id parameters.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_question_reply, ozon_reviews, or ozon_chat_list. There is no context, no exclusions, and no hint about how this relates to the broader question-handling workflow.

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