ozon_rating_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only describes what seller rating is and affects; it says nothing about what the call returns, whether it is read-only, how the summary is computed, or how current the data is. The description is not misleading, but it is behaviorally very thin.

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 sentence with no padding, and the core concept is front-loaded. The [P0] tag and Russian parenthetical add minor extras but do not meaningfully bloat the entry.

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?

Even though this is a simple, parameterless call, there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gaps. The description should at least state what is returned and how this differs from ozon_rating_history or ozon_reviews, but it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether this tool returns a current value, a historical trend, or a detailed breakdown.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 the resource (seller rating) and explains why it matters (search position, promo access, storage cost), but it is a noun phrase rather than an action statement. It never explicitly says the tool retrieves or provides a rating summary, so the agent must infer the operation from the tool name. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool ozon_rating_history.

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 useful context about the seller rating metric's business impact, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison with alternatives. The sibling ozon_rating_history could easily be confused with this tool, yet the description does not explain when to choose summary over history.

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