ozon_get_related_methods

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

With no annotations, the description details that relations are auto-extracted from doc links and workflows and that both forward and backward links are returned. The max_hops parameter behavior is described. This is good transparency, though no mention of caching or rate limits.

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, with two short paragraphs and an args block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, uses clear language, and every sentence adds value.

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, the description covers purpose, parameter details, and use case adequately. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the description fully compensates. It explains operation_id as 'source method' and max_hops with explicit meaning: '1 = direct neighbours, 2 = neighbours of neighbours', adding significant value beyond the 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 verb 'Find methods related to a given one' and identifies the resource as methods derived from doc links and workflows. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ozon_search_methods and ozon_describe_method by focusing on relational links.

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 usefulness for integration ('which calls you'll likely need together when integrating a feature'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the intent is well implied.

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