ozon_get_workflow

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds no behavior that would surprise an agent (it is a simple retrieval). It does not mention output structure, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need. No contradiction.

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 two sentences plus an args listing, all essential. The main purpose is stated upfront, and the parameter reference is placed at the end. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the returned plan is in a structured format, but the output schema covers that. It provides enough for an agent to invoke 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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description references '{svc}_list_workflows' to indicate where valid values come from, which is helpful but minimal. It does not explain the format or constraints beyond the schema's type string. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the low complexity.

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 the specific action (return the full plan) and resource (one workflow), and describes precisely what the plan contains (ordered steps, interpretation guidance, mistakes). It is easily distinguished from siblings like ozon_list_workflows (which likely lists workflows) and ozon_get_section (which gets a section).

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 this tool is for retrieving a workflow plan, and references its companion list tool for discovering workflow names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus, say, ozon_describe_method, but the context is clear that this is for workflow plans, not individual operations.

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