ozon_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact return format and a security guarantee ('Secret values are never returned'), which is beyond the annotation's safety profile. It does not contradict 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 two sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return shape and a security note. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 (per context signals), the description need not explain return values in detail, but it does anyway, reinforcing clarity. It covers the purpose, scope ('for this marketplace'), and a security guarantee. For a read-only list tool with no parameters, this is complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The baseline for zero params is 4. The description adds return format details, which are not parameter semantics but are useful context. No param explanations needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('configured cabinets') and clearly identifies what is returned (active cabinet and list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ozon_add_cabinet and ozon_remove_cabinet by focusing purely on listing, with no ambiguity.

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 context is clear: this tool is for viewing configured cabinets and the active one. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only nature and purpose are obvious from the description and annotations. No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is implied.

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