ozon_perf_call_method

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It confirms the read-only behavior ('Reads only: nothing here changes data') and adds useful operational context beyond annotations: that no confirmation is required, plus the return envelope shape. No contradiction with 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a tightly organized Args block and return format. Every sentence earns its place — the sibling routing, parameter documentation, and return shape are all necessary for correct invocation, 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is already structured. The description references where to find operation_ids (ozon_perf_search_methods) and documents the return envelope. A minor gap: it doesn't mention auth prerequisites, though the sibling ozon_perf_check_auth exists and the catalog likely covers this. Nearly complete for a generic dispatcher.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: operation_id ('id from the catalog (see ozon_perf_search_methods)'), path_values ('values for {placeholders} in the path'), query ('query-string parameters'), and body ('JSON request body (a few read endpoints take one)'). Complete coverage of all 4 params despite an empty 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?

States a specific action ('Execute one READ endpoint from the catalog by operation_id'), identifies the exact resource (a read endpoint from the Ozon Performance API catalog), and names the target API URL. The verb+resource combination unambiguously distinguishes it from the write and delete siblings without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use ('nothing here changes data, so it runs without confirmation') and names the exact alternatives for data-changing operations ('To change data use ozon_perf_write_method, to delete use ozon_perf_delete_method'). The routing to siblings is explicit and leaves nothing to inference.

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