ozon_search_promo_bids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals only a 'max 200' constraint and the CPO bid type; it does not say whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what side effects exist, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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 and has no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It omits the core action and essential operational context, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

Although the tool is structurally simple with one parameter and no nested objects, it has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide complete context. It leaves the operation type, return behavior, and relationship to the promotion/advertising sibling tools unexplained, making it incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'skus' parameter. It adds some meaning by indicating bids are by SKU and by suggesting a 200-item limit, but it does not explain the expected SKU format or whether the 200 limit applies to input size, output size, or both.

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 verbless noun phrase: 'Fixed CPO bids by SKU, max 200.' It identifies the resource and scope but never states whether the tool retrieves, updates, or submits these bids. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling bid tools like ozon_ad_campaign_bids, ozon_ad_bids_competitive, or ozon_ad_min_bids.

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 phrasing implies a relationship to search promotion and SKUs, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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