ozon_get_error_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral outcomes: return all errors, filter by code, or return method-specific plus generic errors. The main gap is how the tool behaves when both code and operation_id are supplied together, but core transparency is strong.

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 first sentence states the core purpose, followed by three terse, high-signal sentences covering each argument mode. There is no filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and parameter meanings well. The only notable omission is the combined `code` + `operation_id` case, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 fully compensates: it explains what `code` does with examples and explains the meaningful behavior of `operation_id` (method-specific plus generic errors). Each parameter receives semantic context the schema lacks.

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 a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Ozon API errors and their solutions'), and explicitly explains the three invocation modes (no arguments, by code, by operation_id). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like rate limits, examples, or method descriptions.

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 gives clear usage context by telling exactly what happens with no arguments, with a code, and with an operation_id. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of the top score, but the run-mode guidance is concrete and actionable.

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