ozon_perf_get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by specifying what the returned plan contains and that it is a single workflow's full plan, which helps the agent understand what invoking this tool actually yields.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is minimal and necessary, and every sentence adds value without 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?

With one simple parameter, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential call context: what the tool returns, what the input means, and where to find valid values. It does not deeply disambiguate from similar-named sibling tools, but the namespace and focus on 'full plan' provide adequate completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'name' is a workflow name and pointing the agent to list_workflows for valid values. This gives meaningful semantics beyond the bare string parameter.

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 ('Return'), a clear resource ('full plan for one workflow'), and the key contents of that plan: ordered steps with operation_id, interpretation guidance, and common mistakes. This clearly distinguishes it from list_workflows and other siblings.

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 implies usage by instructing the agent to obtain a workflow name from list_workflows, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ozon_perf_list_workflows or other get_workflow variants, nor when not to use it.

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