ozon_get_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description complements this by enforcing safe verbs, explaining the default method, host override, and the JSON response envelope. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention authentication prerequisites or rate limits.

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 concise but complete, front-loading the core purpose and then enumerating each parameter with defaults and examples. Every sentence earns its place. The structured block format is easy to scan and use.

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 low schema coverage and the tool's generic raw-access nature, the description covers the essential invocation details: endpoint, method, host, query, body, and response envelope. It also names sibling tools for mutation, making the overall context complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It clearly describes path with an example, method default, host override, query parameters, and body behavior. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read ANY endpoint by path,' and explicitly differentiates itself from the write/delete raw siblings. It also clarifies its scope as general raw reads, including catalog-missing endpoints. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from 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 gives explicit usage rules: 'Safe verbs only (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS)' and directly names alternatives: 'To change data use ozon_write_raw, to delete use ozon_delete_raw.' It also provides the target API URL, so an agent knows exactly where and when this tool applies.

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