ozon_search_methods

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

The description discloses the search algorithm and language support, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. It also does not describe the output format or pagination behavior, which are important for agent decision-making.

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 well-structured with a concise first paragraph stating purpose and search details, followed by a bullet list for parameters. It is front-loaded with the most important information. Slightly verbose in the first paragraph (algorithm details could be condensed), but overall effective.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, search algorithm, and parameter details. It could be enhanced by clarifying the output structure (e.g., returns ranked list of methods with scores), but the output schema likely fills this gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It provides clear explanations with examples for each parameter: query (free-text with examples), section (case-insensitive substring match), api (allowed values 'seller'/'performance'), safety (allowed values 'read'/'write'/'destructive'), and limit (default 10). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 'Full-text search across all Ozon API methods', specifies the fields searched (operation_id, path, summary, description, section, tag), and details the ranking algorithm (BM25 with field boosting) and language support (Russian/English stemming). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that describe single methods or list sections.

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 usage for finding API methods via free-text queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ozon_describe_method or ozon_list_sections. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.

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