ozon_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the tool returns review data, supports filtering beyond SKU, pagination behavior, or whether it is read-only. 'Product reviews' alone gives no behavioral information.

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 properly concise. The '[P0]' priority tag, business rationale, and Russian translation add bulk without earning their place, while the core operation is missing.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it should be invoked. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to know whether this returns a list of reviews, counts, or something else.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'sku' has a minimal 'SKU filter' description, while 'limit' has no description beyond its default. The tool description does not explain either parameter or how they interact, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 is a noun phrase, 'Product reviews' (with the Russian translation 'отзывы'), which essentially restates the tool name. It lacks a verb such as list, get, or fetch, so it does not clearly state what operation the tool performs.

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 sibling tools like ozon_rating_summary, ozon_rating_history, or ozon_review_reply. The business note about negatives cutting conversion implies a purpose but does not give actionable selection criteria.

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