ozon_search_promo_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful fact—bids have been fixed since February 2025—and identifies the CPO metric, but it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, how pagination behaves, or what 'visibility' means in practice.

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 extremely brief and front-loads a priority marker, but it is cryptic: 'P0', 'CPO', and the Russian parenthetical add jargon without a clean verb-object structure. It is concise but not as clear or well-structured as it could be.

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?

Given no output schema and two optional parameters, the description should explain what the returned product list represents, paging behavior, and how bid/visibility values are expressed. It does none of that, leaving substantial gaps for an agent trying to call and interpret 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?

The schema documents the view parameter, but not page; with 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. It mentions the returned data fields (bid %, visibility) but does not explain the page or view parameters, leaving agent invocation partially underspecified.

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 identifies a specific resource—goods in the pay-per-order top promotion (CPO)—and the key data it exposes (bid % and visibility), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like enable/disable/bids. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the read intent is only implied by the tool name and noun-phrase description.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ozon_search_promo_bids, enable, or disable. The 'Bids fixed since 02.2025' note is contextual but does not tell an agent when to select this tool over its siblings.

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