ozon_review_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one useful platform limitation—no edit-reply method, delete and create again—but it does not state whether this call is read-only or mutating, what side effects it has, or any auth or rate-limit constraints.

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 text is short and contains no filler, and the Russian parenthetical is arguably redundant. However, 'Review comments' is a tautological noun phrase rather than an informative lead, and the platform note is not structured to explain purpose, usage, or parameters.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations are provided, so the description must explain returns, parameters, and behavior; it covers none of these. The only substantive addition is the edit-reply limitation, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaning to review_id or limit. An agent is left to guess that review_id identifies the review whose comments are fetched and that limit controls page size. With two parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate 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 says only 'Review comments' (Russian: 'комментарии к отзыву'), which restates the tool name without a verb or object. It never states whether the tool lists, creates, or deletes review comments. The sibling tools include ozon_review_reply and ozon_review_reply_delete, yet the description offers no distinction from them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The note 'Ozon has no edit-reply method: delete and create again' implies a workflow, but the description never says when to invoke this tool instead of ozon_reviews, ozon_review_reply, or ozon_review_reply_delete.

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