ozon_report_finance_create

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. 'Create' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not state whether report generation is asynchronous, how long it might take, whether it overwrites anything, or how the result is returned. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a creation endpoint.

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 sentence with no wasted words and is easy to parse. However, it largely restates the tool name and contributes little beyond the verb-object structure. It is compact but not substantively informative.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only meaningful context, yet it offers almost none. It omits what a financial report is, how it is delivered, whether it is asynchronous, and what the caller should do after creation. This is inadequate for reliable tool 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%, and the description adds no information about date_from or date_to. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description does not mention required date format, inclusivity, timezone handling, or any constraints. Since the description must compensate for the empty schema descriptions and does not, this dimension scores low.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create a financial report') and names the resource type, which distinguishes it from other report-creation siblings like ozon_report_products_create and ozon_report_stocks_create. The Russian gloss adds slight clarity. However, it does not explain what the financial report contains, so it stops just short of a fully informative definition.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ozon_finance_transactions, ozon_finance_totals, or ozon_report_list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts are mentioned. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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