Ozon Catalog Search

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the curl_cffi-to-CDP fallback, that zero matching items is a healthy response rather than an error, and the specific error taxonomy (BadRequestError, TransportDownError, ParserDriftError). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear sections for return format and error format. It front-loads the core purpose before implementation details. The parser-widget detail is somewhat niche for an agent, but it is contextually relevant to explaining parser drift behavior.

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?

Combined with the input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: input requirements, output shape on success, zero-result behavior, error behavior, and the fallback execution tier. There are no significant gaps for invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query and page) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, such as query formatting guidance or page-specific behavior, but it does not need to because the schema carries the burden.

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 opening sentence 'Search Ozon catalog' names a specific verb and resource, and the description further distinguishes this from sibling tools like ozon_card and ozon_reviews by stating it returns sku/title/price/rating per item. The tool's role as the Ozon search entry point is 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 implies the tool is for searching Ozon's catalog, and it documents the tiered execution path. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ozon_card or wb_search, nor does it mention any exclusions or edge cases where another tool should be used.

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