ozon_call_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Reads only: nothing here changes data, so it runs without confirmation' reinforces but also adds the operational consequence (no confirmation). It also discloses the return envelope shape ('Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "status", "data"} or the error envelope'), which is useful beyond the annotations. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or auth requirements, but the read-only safety profile is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and target API come first, then the read-only safety note, then sibling routing, then parameter explanations, then return format. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, 0% schema coverage, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what the tool does, how to find operation_ids, how to route to write/delete alternatives, and what the return envelope looks like. It could mention auth prerequisites or rate limits, but the read-only nature and clear parameter guidance make it largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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. It explains operation_id as 'id from the catalog (see ozon_search_methods)', path_values as 'values for {placeholders} in the path', query as 'query-string parameters', and body as 'JSON request body (a few read endpoints take one)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it could be more detailed about the exact format of path_values.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('one READ endpoint from the catalog by operation_id'), and explicitly contrasts with write/delete siblings. It also names the target API. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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 says when to use this tool ('Reads only') and when not to ('To change data use ozon_write_method, to delete use ozon_delete_method'). It also points to ozon_search_methods for finding operation_ids, giving clear routing guidance.

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