Ozon Product Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: Tier-1 attempt with curl_cffi, fallback to Chrome CDP on Cloudflare 403, and the operator prerequisite to start Chrome via the provided scripts. This helps the agent anticipate operational dependencies.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback/setup details are compactly presented. Every clause adds necessary information.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, fetch mechanism, fallback behavior, and a critical prerequisite (Chrome CDP setup). Minor details like what happens when both tiers fail are not specified, but overall the agent has enough context to call the tool 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?

The input schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, including accepted formats (SKU, URL, /product/<digits>/ path) and SSRF rejection. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a clear action and resource: 'Fetch Ozon product card data'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_reviews and ozon_search, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The phrase 'via composer-api.bx' adds technical specificity but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ozon_reviews or ozon_search. The fallback and setup details describe internal operation, not tool selection context. Usage context is only implicitly conveyed by the resource name.

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