ozon_perf_describe_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating it returns a record. It adds value by listing the specific data fields returned, which is beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose error scenarios, authentication requirements, or any constraints on which endpoints can be described, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that packs all essential information: the action, the scope, and the exact fields returned. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's output. It is perfectly sized.

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 read-only describe operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the intent and lists the returned fields. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how to obtain the operation_id (e.g., via a search tool) and potential error conditions, but those are somewhat external to the core function.

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 schema has one parameter, operation_id, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description refers to 'one endpoint' but never explicitly explains that operation_id is the endpoint identifier, nor does it give format or sourcing hints. The connection is implicit, not explicit, so the description adds only minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 verb (Return), the resource (full catalog record), and the scope (one endpoint). It enumerates the exact fields returned (method, host, path, etc.), making it obvious what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like search_methods or map. The platform prefix in the name also disambiguates it from other marketplaces' describe_method 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_perf_search_methods or ozon_perf_call_method. The description does not mention that one should describe an endpoint before calling it, nor does it explain how to obtain an operation_id. Usage context must be inferred from the name and the single parameter.

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