Ozon Catalog Search

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: the tiered transport (curl_cffi to CDP), the specific widget parsing, the healthy response with zero items, and the raised error types. No contradiction with 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 structured into clear sections (Return Format, Error Format) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. A few sentences could be tightened, but the details are useful and not wasteful.

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?

The description explains the return format (OzonSearchResponse), the error model (ToolError subclasses), and the zero-match behavior, making it self-sufficient. Output schema exists, but the description adds operational context that is not redundant.

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 input schema covers both parameters (query and page) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions page and query only implicitly. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search Ozon catalog,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ozon_card or wb_search. It further specifies the return fields (sku/title/price/rating) and the search tier architecture, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., ozon_card for detailed product info). It does mention fallback behavior as a technical detail, but not usage context or exclusions.

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