ozon_get_prices

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns a JSON payload with specific fields (price, marketing_seller_price, commissions) and states that the cursor is for pagination from a previous response. No side effects or failure modes are disclosed, but those are largely covered by the 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?

Extremely compact and well-ordered: core purpose with endpoint first, then parameter list, then return payload. Zero filler, zero repetition, and the pagination cursor note is meaningfully placed near the parameter it describes.

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 read-only paginated endpoint, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource, the three parameters, and the return shape. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to enumerate response fields further. Minor gap: it doesn't explain when pagination would be necessary or how many results come back per page, but that's not critical for a simple read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all three parameters (visibility, limit, cursor) get one-line meanings, including defaults ('ALL') and the max page size (1000). It doesn't specify allowed visibility values or the exact cursor format, but it adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('prices, commissions and price indexes per product') plus the exact API endpoint (v5/product/info/prices). This distinguishes it from platform-level siblings like ym_get_prices or wb_get_pricesable, and from write operations like ozon_set_price. It doesn't explicitly contrast with ozon_get_products, though the resource is clearly different, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention uzation, pagination strategy, or why an agent would call this instead of ozon_get_products or a fetch-all wrapper. The endpoint is stated, but usage context is absent.

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