Get Ozon product Q&A

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing return contents (question text, author, date, answers from seller or buyers) and the identifier requirement (sku or URL). Pagination and error behavior are not disclosed, but that is a minor gap for a read-only tool with a limit parameter already documented in the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, tightly front-loaded: core purpose leads, use cases follow, then return format and input requirement. Every sentence earns its place and none repeats what annotations or the schema already state. This is an exemplary size and order for a low-complexity tool.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use context, return fields, and input requirements — reasonably complete. The residual gaps are the unclear sku-versus-product parameter relationship and the absence of behavior on invalid identifiers, both of which matter for an agent invoking 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 67% (limit and product documented; sku bare). The tool description adds marginal value with 'Requires product sku or URL', but it does not resolve the ambiguity between the sku and product parameters — product's schema description already accepts numeric SKU, URL, or slug, so an agent cannot tell which parameter to populate or whether they are alternatives. The schema carries most of the burden, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Questions and answers on the product page' — fetching product Q&A content distinct from other catalog data. It explicitly carves out '(not reviews)', distinguishing it from the closely related sibling ozon_product_reviews, and enumerates the content scope (compatibility, package contents, warranty, regional versions, setup tips). This is specific enough that an agent can separate it from all 18 siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use for compatibility, package contents, warranty, regional versions, setup tips — things buyers ask before purchase.' It also provides a when-not via '(not reviews)'. However, it never names the alternative sibling (ozon_product_reviews) for the reviews case, so the routing instruction stops just short of fully explicit.

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