ozon_fetch_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details pagination walking, rate limit enforcement, safety cap, and return format. The reference to an external knowledge file adds context, though the agent may need to resolve it.

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-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns) and essential details. It is slightly dense in the first paragraph but overall efficient and front-loaded with the main 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 (pagination handling) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers argument semantics, return structure, and safety mechanisms. It could include a simple example but is otherwise complete.

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 add meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter: operation_id (same as call method), params (without pagination fields), max_items (range), and cabinet_tier (override). This is far beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool fetches all pages of a paginated Ozon endpoint, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ozon_call_method by explicit mention of pagination walking.

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 explains when to use this tool (for paginated endpoints) and provides constraints like max_items and ownership of pagination fields. It mentions rate limits but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives beyond the implied comparison to ozon_call_method.

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