ozon_search_queries_top

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It characterizes the data as popular search queries but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or what the response structure looks like. The 'топ запросов' hint implies ranking but does not provide adequate behavioral transparency.

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 a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler. It communicates the core resource and purpose efficiently, though it could include more operational detail without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core data and purpose adequately. However, it omits return-structure details, ordering semantics, and any usage guidance beyond SEO, leaving an agent to infer several operational aspects.

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 for the only parameter, 'limit'. The schema gives type and default but not what the parameter controls. The parameter is simple enough to infer, but the description does not explicitly compensate for the missing schema description.

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 the resource ('popular Ozon search queries') and its use case ('input for card SEO'), and the parenthetical 'топ запросов' reinforces that these are top queries. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but it is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools such as ozon_product_queries.

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 phrase 'input for card SEO' implies the tool is for keyword/SEO research, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like ozon_product_queries or search-promotion tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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