ozon_perf_check_auth

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly stating it does NOT reveal secret values and by specifying the exact return JSON structure. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it does not elaborate on potential side effects (which are none given read-only nature).

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then the safety note, then the return format. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, non-revelation of secrets, and return structure. However, it does not specify which credentials are required or how this differs from the similar ozon_check_auth tool, which could leave an agent uncertain about the exact scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema shows. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking whether required credentials are present in the environment. It specifies the resource (Ozon Perf credentials) and the action (check), and explicitly notes what it does NOT do (reveal secrets). The platform prefix in the name distinguishes it from sibling check_auth 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for Ozon Perf (distinct from ozon_check_auth), there is no guidance on choosing between them or when not to use it. The context of platform-specific auth checks is implied but not articulated.

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