Get Ozon product details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, and the description adds value beyond them: default compact=true, auto-loading nutrition for food-like cards, imageDataUri generating a small Data URI thumbnail, and rich mode retaining images[] URLs plus full description. This gives clear behavioral expectations for an agent.

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 dense yet compact: every clause carries meaningful information, default behavior is front-loaded, and the sibling pointer is placed at the end as a clean escape hatch. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the agent can expect from both compact and rich payloads, including nutrition and thumbnail behavior. It could still be more complete about error cases or the exact shape of response objects, but for a read-only product-details tool this is sufficient.

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 beyond the schema by explaining what compact/rich actually change, what imageDataUri returns, and when nutrition is auto-enriched. It does not add much for imageSize or sku/product alias, but those are already well documented 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 the tool returns a product card with specific fields (price, seller, location, delivery, characteristics, nutrition) and explicitly distinguishes it from the all-specs sibling by directing 'For ALL specs: ozon_product_specs.' The title and description together identify a specific verb+resource, so an agent can tell this apart from siblings.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use this for product-card summaries and ozon_product_specs for all specs. It also explains when to use compact vs rich mode and when to enable imageDataUri and nutrition enrichment, which is actionable usage context.

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