ozon_supply_order_counters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only aggregation behavior ('counters by status'), which signals it is non-mutating. However, it does not disclose any details about the statuses returned, time ranges covered, or response shape, leaving behavioral expectations somewhat open.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core meaning. The parenthetical Russian translation adds no information beyond the English text, so it is slightly redundant, but the overall length is appropriate for a zero-parameter utility.

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 zero-parameter tool this is minimally viable: an agent can infer that calling it yields status-to-count mappings. However, there is no output schema and no description of the exact response fields, statuses, or whether the counters cover a particular period, so an agent must discover these details at runtime.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter syntax or meaning. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds nothing misleading. It could not meaningfully improve parameter semantics.

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 states the resource (supply orders) and the output (counters grouped by status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ozon_supply_orders and ozon_supply_order_get, which clearly operate on lists or individual orders. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', relying on the noun phrase to imply retrieval.

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 provided about when to use this counter tool versus the related ozon_supply_orders or ozon_supply_order_get tools. The description simply states what it returns without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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