Search Ozon products

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses concrete behaviors: default compact=true returns slim fields to save context, compact:false/rich:true returns full nested variants/configs/images, priceMin/priceMax are enforced client-side, and category slugs must be copied verbatim from another tool or URL. These are meaningful operational traits an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the opening states purpose, the second covers default response shape, the third describes the full-payload toggle, and the rest gives warnings, filter guidance, and next-step routing. It is dense but not bloated.

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 21-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers default payload, full payload access, category-slug sourcing, key filters, seller-trust options, preferred limits, and downstream tool recommendations. The carefully documented schema fills in the remaining parameter details, so an agent has what it needs to select and call the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining rich as an alias for compact:false, noting that priceMin/priceMax are enforced client-side, and bundling minSellerRating/minSellerOrders with withDelivery as a seller-trust pattern. It does not cover all 21 parameters, but the schema already documents those thoroughly.

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 frames this as the 'entry point for product discovery on ozon.ru' and enumerates the default result fields (sku, name, price, rating, reviews, brand, url), making it clear this is the product search tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ozon_list_categories and ozon_product_details by pointing to them as follow-ups. It stops short of stating 'searches products' with an explicit verb, so the purpose is clear but relies on context rather than direct wording.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do NOT guess category slugs — call ozon_list_categories' and 'omit category for plain text search.' It also recommends parameter combinations for seller trust in one call and names the exact next tools (ozon_product_details, ozon_compare_products, ozon_product_offers), leaving little to inference.

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