ozon_get_workflow

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses return structure: ordered steps, operation_ids, pagination/batching/concurrency guidance, DB schema, gotchas, and for analytical workflows additional fields. Does not mention authentication or rate limits, but conveys key behavioral aspects for a read-only tool.

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?

Well-structured: opening statement, bullet-like list of return content, and Args section. Approximately 60 words, front-loaded, no redundant sentences.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers return values sufficiently: ordered steps, guidance, DB schema, gotchas, and additional fields for analytical workflows. No apparent gaps.

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?

Single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage. Description adds meaning with 'workflow name from ozon_list_workflows' and examples. This guides the agent on valid values, compensating for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Get the full step-by-step plan for one workflow.' Specifies the resource (workflow) and action (get). Differentiates from siblings like ozon_list_workflows and others that handle different resources.

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?

Provides an Args section with example workflow names, implying use after listing. Mentions analytical workflows have extra fields. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references, but context from siblings and examples guides usage.

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