ozon_checkout_prepare

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the purchase is not finalized, maxTotalRub acts as a hard ceiling on the total, saved pickup points and Ozon installment are preferred, and a one-time confirmation is returned only when the full plan succeeds. It does not say what happens on a partial plan or what the token is used for.

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?

Telegraphic and front-loaded: the action and its hard safety constraint come first, then the limit, then the preferences and return value. Dense but every clause carries information; only the abrupt phrasing slightly hurts readability.

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 checkout-preparation tool with no output schema and five 0%-documented parameters, the description covers the critical safety semantics and the confirmation token, but leaves the return shape on failure, what a 'full plan' means, and most parameter meaning unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It defines maxTotalRub as the maximum total and hints that payment favors ozon_installment and that pickupPoint defaults to a saved point, but url, quantity and the ozon_bank option get no added meaning beyond their names and bounds.

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?

States a specific verb chain and resource: open the 'Купить сейчас' checkout, verify product/quantity/total/delivery/pickup point/payment, and explicitly not press 'Оформить заказ'. That negative clause cleanly separates it from the confirm step (ozon_action_confirm), though no sibling is named outright.

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 'НЕ нажимая Оформить заказ' clause and the mention of a one-off confirmation imply the intended workflow (prepare here, confirm elsewhere), but the follow-up tool is never named and there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over e.g. ozon_cart or ozon_action_status.

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