ozon_get_stocks

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the endpoint, the returned per-product and per-warehouse-type breakdown, pagination via last_id, and the limit cap of <=1000.

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 core purpose, followed by an efficient Args block. Every sentence contributes either the operation, endpoint, parameter semantics, or return shape, with no 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?

For a tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the endpoint, parameter meanings, constraints, and return shape. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it leaves usage-alternative guidance to inference and does not document visibility value options.

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%, but the description compensates meaningfully by explaining each parameter: visibility is a product visibility filter defaulting to ALL, limit is page size capped at 1000, and last_id is the pagination cursor. It does not enumerate possible visibility values, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 and resource: 'Get available + reserved stock per product' and names the underlying endpoint v4/product/info/stocks. It clearly differs from product-listing siblings like ozon_get_products, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_get_products or wb_get_stocks. The use case is inferable from the name and purpose, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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