ozon_report_stocks_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only restates the action ('Create a stock report'). It doesn't disclose whether report generation is asynchronous, what the response contains (e.g., a report ID to poll), or how results are subsequently retrieved — all material traits for a report-creation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead immediately, and the Russian gloss earns its place by disambiguating 'stock' as inventory balances rather than shares.

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?

Despite the parametric simplicity, the description is not complete as a standalone guide. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent cannot infer the report's contents, the likely async retrieval flow via ozon_report_info/ozon_report_list, or how this tool differs from the three other ozon_report_*_create siblings — the context signals confirm these are absent, so the description must carry the full burden and does not.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document and no schema-coverage gap to compensate for. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters applies, and the description correctly doesn't attempt to invent parameter detail.

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 specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('stock report'), and the Russian parenthetical (отчёт по остаткам) clarifies the meaning as a report on remaining balances. This distinguishes it at a surface level from sibling report creators like ozon_report_products_create and ozon_report_finance_create, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit — it never says what the report actually contains.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains ozon_report_products_create, ozon_report_finance_create, ozon_report_discounted_create, ozon_stock_on_warehouses, and ozon_analytics_stocks, yet the description gives an agent no criteria for choosing among them.

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