ozon_call_method

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the safety model, subscription gate, rate limit handling (retries with Retry-After, semaphore for slow endpoints), and error envelope. This goes well beyond what structured fields would provide.

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 well-structured with clear section headers (SAFETY MODEL, SUBSCRIPTION GATE, RATE LIMITS). It is appropriately sized—each sentence adds value, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, safety flags, subscription, rate limits), the description covers all behavioral aspects comprehensively. It explains what happens on failure (structured OzonError). Since there is an output schema, return value details are not needed. Complete for an execution tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data in the context of safety classes, cabinet_tier as an override, operation_id with an example, and params as the request body. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type/default info.

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 clearly states it executes real calls against the Ozon API, using a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Ozon API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ozon_describe_method (which describes methods) by focusing on execution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use safety flags (confirm_write, i_understand_this_modifies_data) based on the method's safety class, and mentions subscription gate and rate limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, though the context implies that for description or listing, other siblings should be used.

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