Get Ozon product variants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the return shape: aspects[] with variants[] containing sku, label, price, oldPrice, available, and url. It stops short of discussing pagination or data freshness, but that is less critical given the annotations.

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 compact sentences with no filler: it states what the tool returns, gives concrete usage examples, and lists the output fields. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly provides the return structure. It also covers user-intent scenarios, making the tool reasonably complete for a simple read-only lookup. The main gap is that the sku/product parameter ambiguity and the zero-required-parameters situation are not clarified.

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 only 50%: the 'product' parameter is well documented, but 'sku' has no schema description. The description's statement that each variant has its own sku and price provides a useful semantic hint, but it does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters or why neither is required.

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 resource (product configuration options) and what it returns (variants each with their own sku, price, availability, etc.). It is distinct from a simple product-details lookup, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation.

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 trigger examples: '512GB or 1TB?', 'what colors available?', or needing a sku for a specific configuration. It provides clear usage context but does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly compare it with alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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