Compare Ozon seller offers

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: includeCurrent=true prepends the current card's seller with isCurrentListing=true, delivery comes from the product page rather than only /otherOffers, advantages[] contains all badges, and delivery dates depend on city/address state. This gives the agent a realistic model of what the call will produce and what side effects location settings have.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by dense behavioral details that earn their place. There is no filler or repetition of schema text — every sentence adds distinct 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?

For a 7-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including row fields, default inclusion of the current seller, and the location prerequisite. Minor gaps remain, such as an explicit return-shape overview or sorting/limit implications, but these are largely covered by the schema defaults and descriptions.

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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for includeCurrent by explaining the default behavior and the isCurrentListing flag, which the schema does not capture. It also emphasizes that a product sku is needed, though this is slightly ambiguous given the separate product parameter accepts URLs or slugs.

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 "Lists sellers for the product cluster" and enumerates row-level fields such as price, rating, delivery text, and badges, so an agent can see it returns seller-offer comparison data. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools like ozon_product_details, ozon_product_variants, or ozon_compare_products, so the clarity relies on inferred rather than stated boundaries.

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 a concrete prerequisite workflow: "call ozon_search_cities then ozon_set_city (optionally with address for a specific PVZ area) first" because delivery dates depend on location.city / pickupAddress. It also notes that a product sku is required. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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