ozon_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON list with specific fields (operation_id, method, path, safety, summary), which is useful. It does not mention pagination or potential errors, but given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate 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?

The description is concise, front-loading the purpose and including the arguments and return format in a well-structured docstring. Every sentence is necessary, with no fluff.

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 tool has one parameter, a clear return format, and annotations for read-only safety, the description is fairly complete. It lacks details on error handling or enumeration of section names, but it points to where to get them (list_sections). The output schema exists, so return format is well covered.

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 schema only provides the parameter name and type. The description compensates by explaining the section parameter should come from {svc}_list_sections and gives an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't fully describe the range of valid values, earning a baseline 3.

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 it lists all endpoints in one section, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('endpoints in one section'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ozon_list_sections (which lists sections) and ozon_search_methods (which searches methods), and the return format is specified.

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 requiring a section name from ozon_list_sections and provides an example ('statistics'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ozon_describe_method or ozon_get_section for other services (e.g., ozon_perf_get_section). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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