Ozon Product Reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond by detailing the tier-1/tier-2 fallback, 30-per-page walking, hard 10-page cap, dedup by uuid, and nuanced partial-success/error handling. This is exemplary disclosure of behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (introduction, behavior, return format, error format). Every sentence carries useful information—no filler. While longer than a one-liner, the density and organization keep it efficient and scannable.

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 tool with pagination, partial failures, and multiple error modes, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the success return shape, partial-success semantics, and the exact conditions for each error type. Combined with a rich output schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how 'limit' interacts with automatic page walking (30/page until limit collected) and the hard cap, which is not fully captured in the schema alone. This pushes it to a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch Ozon product review texts + star distribution'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on reviews (vs. search, card, etc.) and even references the sibling ozon_card for implementation context. This is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state 'use this when X, use Y when Z', but it provides clear context about the return format, pagination behavior, and partial-success semantics, which helps an agent understand when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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