ozon_rating_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Seller rating history'. It implies read-only historical data but discloses no details about return format, granularity, pagination, timezone, or error behavior.

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 but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The parenthetical Russian translation '(история рейтинга)' duplicates the English phrase and adds no 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 output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter documentation, this description is too thin for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to format both required parameters. It provides only the barest understanding of the resource.

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%: date_from has a format description while date_to has none. The tool description adds no parameter meaning and does not compensate for the missing date_to documentation, though the parameter names are self-explanatory.

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 that the tool concerns seller rating history, which identifies the resource, but it uses no verb and simply expands the tool name with 'Seller'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ozon_rating_summary, which also relates to seller ratings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_rating_summary or ozon_reviews. The date range parameters imply a temporal query, but the description does not state this or exclude any other use case.

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