ozon_perf_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing the read-only, bounded nature. The description adds value by specifying the return format: a JSON list of objects with fields operation_id, method, path, safety, and summary. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover error cases or pagination, which are less critical for a simple list operation.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and the parameter explanation and return format in a short second paragraph. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (one parameter, simple return list) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but implied), the description is fairly complete. It covers the parameter source, an example, and the exact return structure. It omits potential error handling or authentication notes, but the readOnlyHint and simple nature make these minor gaps. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'section'. The description fully compensates by explaining that it expects a section name from ozon_perf_list_sections and provides a concrete example 'statistics'. This gives the agent clear guidance on valid values and how to obtain them, going well beyond the bare schema definition.

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 action 'List all endpoints in one section' with a specific resource and scope. It avoids tautology and provides a distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ozon_get_section or wb_get_section, relying on the name prefix 'ozon_perf_' for distinction, which is less explicit than ideal.

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 a hint about how to obtain a valid section name (see ozon_perf_list_sections) and provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar get_section tools for other providers (wb, ym, avito, ozon), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond listing sections. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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