ozon_map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds that it is a map/orientation tool and can be called with no args, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't discuss the output format or potential size of the map, which could be large, nor does it mention any limits.

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 composed of three sentences, each earning its place: the first frames the tool's purpose, the second gives concrete usage instructions, and the third advises when to use it. It's front-loaded with the 'big picture' concept and avoids any 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's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential usage guidance. However, because it's a mapping tool, it could benefit from including an example of expected output or what the map contains, but the output schema is provided, which may compensate. Overall, it's quite complete for an overview tool.

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?

The schema provides a single optional 'entity' property with a default empty string, which is ambiguous. The description clarifies that 'entity' can be a specific entity name like 'reviews' or 'stocks/prices/orders', effectively compensating for the 0% schema coverage. Since it adds clear meaning to the parameter, but the schema is minimal, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool is a capabilities map for the OZON API, and explains that calling it with no arguments shows the whole map or pass entity='reviews' to list methods for that entity. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ozon_describe_method' or 'ozon_search_methods' by framing it as a high-level orientation tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Call with no args to see the whole map... Use this before guessing — it orients you fast.' It clearly implies when to prefer this over other tools (before guessing or exploring), and gives concrete examples of how to invoke it (entity='reviews', etc.).

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