Compare Ozon products side-by-side

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those annotations: default compact mode, what gets omitted (per-SKU characteristics dump and missingKeys), what full mode retains, and where extracted{} data originates. It does not fully describe the returned matrix shape, but it is sufficiently transparent for invocation.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and range, then immediately explains the two output modes and the extracted{} source. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 small parameter surface and lack of an output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining what the agent will receive: a matrix, slim or full product rows, characteristics, missingKeysByProduct, and extracted{} fields. It does not enumerate all possible output fields or edge cases, but it gives enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the practical effect of compact versus rich/compact:false — slim rows to save context versus full characteristics and missingKeysByProduct — and clarifies that rich is an alias. This adds meaning beyond the raw boolean descriptions in 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 a specific action ('Compare') on a specific resource ('products') with an explicit count range of 2–8. The title and description together make this tool unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like search, details, or batch retrieval.

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?

It conveys clear usage context: use this tool when comparing 2–8 products side-by-side, with two output modes depending on whether compactness or full detail is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the comparison scope is strongly implied by the description and siblings.

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