ozon_get_error_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains the tool is read-only (lookup) and describes filtering behavior. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a pure lookup tool, this is adequate. A 5 would require explicit statement of non-destructiveness or safety.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds essential information without fluff. The structure is clear: purpose first, then argument modes. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main functionality and argument usage. It could mention behavior for invalid codes or empty results, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a lookup 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: 'code' filters by error code (with examples like '429'), and 'operation_id' returns errors specific to that method plus generic ones. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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's purpose: to look up Ozon API errors and their solutions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., ozon_describe_method, ozon_get_rate_limits) by focusing on error catalog lookup. The verb 'look up' is specific, and the resource is clearly the error catalog.

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 each argument combination: without arguments returns all errors, with code filters by code, with operation_id returns method-specific plus generic errors. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools (e.g., ozon_describe_method might also show errors), which would elevate it to a 5.

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