ozon_seller_action_products

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 does not state that this is a read/list operation, how pagination works via 'limit', what fields the returned goods include, or anything about failure modes. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name with minimal added behavioral context.

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 this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It is a fragment ('Goods in the seller's own promotion') rather than a complete sentence, and it omits information an agent needs. The tiny size does not earn credit because it does not use its few words to convey operational guidance.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description alone must make the tool safely invocable. A 6-word noun phrase cannot do this for a tool that requires action_id and has a pagination parameter. An agent cannot determine the request shape, the response format, or the difference from ozon_actions_products. The definition is far below the minimum viable bar.

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 undocumented 'action_id' and 'limit' parameters. It does not: neither parameter is mentioned, explained, or connected to the tool's behavior. 'action_id' could be inferred as the promotion identifier from context, but 'limit' semantics and defaults are entirely unexplained.

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 ('goods in the seller's own promotion') and scopes it to the seller's own promotions rather than Ozon's marketplace actions, which partially distinguishes it from siblings like ozon_actions_products. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb like 'list' or 'get', so the operation being performed is only implied. The meaning is understandable but under-specified.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many closely related siblings (ozon_actions_products, ozon_actions_candidates, ozon_seller_action_products_add, ozon_actions_list). The phrase 'seller's own promotion' hints at a distinction from Ozon-mandated actions, but there are no explicit conditions, prereqs, or exclusions. An agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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