ozon_get_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic function, such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with an example list under 'Args'. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (verb, resource, input) is front-loaded. No extraneous text.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which slightly reduces completeness. For its complexity, it is mostly adequate.

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?

The description explains the single parameter 'query' as 'section name or tag', providing concrete examples like 'FinanceAPI', 'Финансовые отчёты', 'ProductAPI'. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only has a type 'string' with no description, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action: 'List all methods inside a section (by section name or tag).' It specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'methods inside a section', and the input mode 'by section name or tag', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_list_sections that list sections, and ozon_search_methods that search across all methods.

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 implies that the tool is used when you have a section name or tag to retrieve its methods, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ozon_search_methods, ozon_describe_method). It lacks 'when-to-use', 'when-not-to-use', or referral to siblings.

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