ozon_perf_get_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying safe verbs (GET/HEAD/OPTIONS), noting that a body may be needed on some reads, and describing the JSON return envelope. It does not mention authentication, cabinet selection, or rate limits, but for a purely read-only raw-path tool with this annotation coverage, the added behavioral context is solid though not exhaustive.

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 appropriately compact and well-organized. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the API link, safety/alternative guidance, a clean Args list, and a return-value note. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes it scannable for an agent.

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 open-world nature of this tool, the description supplies the target API documentation, safe verb constraints, sibling routing, parameter descriptions with defaults, and the expected response envelope. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional external information, aside from general OZON Performance authentication that applies system-wide.

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 carry the full parameter burden. It does: it lists all five parameters with defaults, path format ('beginning with /'), an example path, and clarifications for method, host, query, and body. This meaningfully goes beyond the bare schema titles and gives an agent everything needed to construct a correct call.

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 'Read ANY endpoint by path, including ones missing from the catalog,' which is a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It names the target API and explicitly differentiates from write and delete raw tools, so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings without inspecting their schemas.

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 explicitly states safe verbs only and names the exact alternatives for changes: 'To change data use ozon_perf_write_raw, to delete use ozon_perf_delete_raw.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and the 'including ones missing from the catalog' phrase positions it as the catch-all for arbitrary reads.

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