ozon_perf_list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only adds that it returns JSON with specific fields. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authority requirements are mentioned, but the read-only nature is clear.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second details output format and sibling usage. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: listing workflows and returning specific fields. It also directs to the sibling for more detail.

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 no parameter explanation is needed. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds no param info because none exist.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists ready-made analytical workflows (recipes) and specifies the return format with fields name, category, when_to_use. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ozon_get_workflow, which provides step-by-step plans.

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?

Description advises using ozon_get_workflow to fetch full step-by-step plans, guiding when to use an alternative. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for other sibling tools like ozon_perf_list_sections.

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