Get full Ozon product specifications

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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: fieldCount varies, many cards have fewer than 8 fields, nutrition{} appears conditionally, and incomplete results should not be fabricated. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents misuse.

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 but every sentence carries useful information: what the tool returns, variability, conditional nutrition data, incomplete-data behavior, and sibling comparison. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no 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 no output schema, the description does a solid job naming return details (fieldCount, nutrition{}, specsIncomplete) and warning about sparse data. It could be slightly more explicit about requiring a sku or product identifier even though the schema lists no required parameters, but overall it equips an agent to use the tool safely.

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?

The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. The input schema already documents product with its accepted formats, but sku has no description, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description mentions 'another SKU' only incidentally and does not clarify which parameter to use or how they relate.

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 identifies the tool as returning technical characteristics from an Ozon listing, with a specific resource (product specs) and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ozon_product_details by noting it is more complete when the seller filled the table.

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 concrete guidance: when specs are sparse/specsIncomplete=true, do not invent numbers and instead try another SKU or ozon_product_questions. It also mentions the alternative ozon_product_details and when that comparison holds. It does not exhaustively cover all sibling choices, but provides enough situational routing.

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