ozon_perf_list_sections

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is light. It adds one behavioral detail beyond the annotations—that results include per-section counts of catalog endpoints—but discloses nothing about ordering, output size, or failure behavior. With the output schema present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single 11-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and wastes no words. Every phrase ('how many catalog endpoints each contains') adds information beyond what the bare tool name conveys.

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, read-only listing tool with an output schema in place, the description covers invocation intent and the general shape of the result. It's only missing an explicit scoping note ('Ozon Performance API') and a pointer to the sibling ozon_list_sections, which are minor gaps at this complexity level.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies with nothing to document. The description is even oriented toward the output (per-section endpoint counts), which is the most useful information an agent could get for an argument-less 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('API sections'), adding a distinctive feature: 'how many catalog endpoints each contains.' The tool's action is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling ozon_list_sections beyond the name prefix, leaving the Performance-API scope to be inferred.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions no exclusions and doesn't route the agent to ozon_list_sections (the non-Performance counterpart) or ozon_perf_get_section for drilling into a single section. An agent must infer usage purely from naming conventions.

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