Ozon: get stocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and reveals a non-obvious behavior: 'Fulfillment models are never merged.' It does not mention pagination behavior or data freshness, but for a simple read-only stock query these are not critical omissions.

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 short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Returns Ozon stock levels split by FBO and FBS'), then adds the useful read-only and non-merging clarifications. Every sentence contributes.

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 the presence of an output schema and a relatively simple read-only list operation, the description covers the essential behavior and key non-obvious detail (FBO/FBS split). It does not explain pagination or the connection_id disambiguation, but those are adequately handled by the schema and don't make the tool impossible to invoke.

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 schema already describes 3 of 5 parameters (60% coverage), and the description reinforces the meaning of fulfillment_model by explaining 'FBO (Ozon warehouses) and FBS (seller warehouses)' — though this largely duplicates the schema text. It adds no semantic value for limit, cursor, or seller_sku, so this is a middle-ground score.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('Ozon stock levels'), and a defining structural detail (split by FBO and FBS, available to order and reserved). It clearly distinguishes this tool from marketplace siblings like wb_stocks_get and ym_stocks_get by explicitly naming Ozon and the stock-level resource.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when Ozon stock levels are needed, with a useful clarification that FBO and FBS are never merged. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different marketplace/stock needs, so it stops short of full guidance.

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