Ozon: get prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully disclose behavior: 'Read-only; never changes prices' is an explicit safety guarantee, and 'Money values are decimal strings' prevents float-parsing mistakes. It does not cover pagination or connection-related failure modes, but for a simple read-only getter the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds information: what is returned, the read-only guarantee, and the decimal-string format. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, it omits practical call context such as pagination via cursor, the meaning of limit, or how to handle multiple Ozon connections beyond the schema note. It is adequate for a straightforward price getter but leaves some operational gaps.

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 33%; only connection_id has an explanation. The description does not compensate by explaining limit or cursor behavior, nor does it mention pagination or how the parameters affect results. The description focuses on return fields rather than the input parameters.

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: 'Returns current Ozon prices.' It enumerates the returned fields (price before discount, customer price, currency) and the 'Ozon' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_prices_get and ym_prices_get.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that this is the tool for reading Ozon price data specifically, nor does it mention any exclusions or when a sibling tool like ozon_products_list might be more appropriate. The only contextual hint appears in the schema's connection_id description, not in the tool description itself.

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