ozon_search_methods

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as read-only. The description adds behavior beyond that: it works in Russian and English, returns results 'best first', and specifies a limit range (1-50). This enriches the agent's understanding of expected behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args list and a one-line return description. There is no redundant or filler content; 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description needn't detail the return structure—it only says 'JSON list of matching endpoints (best first)', which is sufficient. The description covers the purpose, arguments (with examples and limits), language support, and return type. For a search tool of this simplicity, nothing essential is missing.

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 fully compensate. It does: 'query: free text' with concrete examples ('остатки', 'stocks', 'update price') clarifies the expected input, and 'limit: max results (1-50)' adds range constraints. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('endpoint catalog'), and the scope ('by keyword'). It also notes language support (Russian and English), which further clarifies its purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_describe_method (which presumably describes a specific endpoint) and ozon_map, making it unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: when you need to find endpoints by keyword. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., ozon_describe_method, ozon_get_section) makes it obvious that this is the discovery tool. The language support note adds a useful usage constraint.

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