hh_fetch_all

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) already cover the safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral value: it enumerates the pagination styles handled (offset, last_id, cursor Ozon v4/v5, page, WB lastChangeDate), the auto-derived array path, and a max_items hard cap to protect context. Truncation behavior is disclosed, though rate-limit/retry behavior is not.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block and a Returns line. The pagination-style sentence is dense but earns its place; structure is easy to scan with no filler.

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 7-param tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, pagination mechanics, parameter roles, and the truncation/cap contract. Nothing essential to a correct invocation is missing.

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 load, and it documents all 7 parameters including the key default behaviors (items_path defaults to the endpoint's own path, max_items defaults to 10000, cursor fields auto-managed). It omits the limit default of 1000, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource: it auto-paginates a read endpoint and returns every row in a single response. It clearly implies a pagination-wrapper role distinct from one-shot callers like hh_call_method, though it never names a sibling to sharpen that contrast.

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?

It signals that the target must be a read endpoint from the catalog and notes that cursor fields are managed for the caller, which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or explicitly points to hh_call_method/hh_call_raw as the non-paginating alternatives.

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