ozon_perf_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: no-args returns the whole map, while entity= returns a per-entity method list. It also frames the tool as orientation/navigation rather than mutation. This is enough for a read-only map tool, though it doesn't discuss auth or return structure.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second covers both invocation modes precisely, and the third gives the strategic usage cue. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: one optional parameter, no required params, an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and when to use it. There is no significant missing information that an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: 'pass entity="reviews" (or stocks/prices/orders/…) to list every method of one entity' and 'Call with no args to see the whole map.' It doesn't enumerate every valid entity value, but the examples and optionality are sufficient for a 1-parameter optional field.

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 purpose: showing the big picture of the API's business entities and the go-to methods for each. It clearly distinguishes this navigation tool from method-execution or search tools by saying 'Call with no args to see the whole map' and 'pass entity=... to list every method of one entity.' The 'this API' phrasing plus the ozon_perf_ prefix differentiates it from sibling maps like wb_map, ozon_map, ym_map, and avito_map.

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 explicit usage instructions: call with no args for the whole map, or pass an entity name for one entity's methods. It also says 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast,' which is a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ozon_perf_search_methods or ozon_perf_describe_method or state when not to use it, so it misses the full exclusion guidance expected for a 5.

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