ozon_describe_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it mostly delivers. It reveals that all $ref pointers are inlined, combinators are preserved verbatim, and the response conditionally includes rate_limit, quirks, examples, and related methods when the knowledge layer is loaded. It does not mention behavior for invalid, missing, or ambiguous input, but the main output characteristics are clearly disclosed.

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: purpose first, then key output behavior, then input instructions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema field titles. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 method-description tool, the description is largely complete: it covers what is returned, the conditional enrichment, and the parameter selection strategy. It could be stronger by noting error behavior or when to prefer sibling discovery tools, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in prose.

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 compensate, and it does. It explains the relationship between path and http_method, identifies operation_id as the preferred alternative, and states that path can be optionally paired with http_method. It stops short of giving concrete formats or examples, but the core semantic distinction between the two lookup modes is present.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a complete description of one Ozon API method.' It goes beyond a generic statement by specifying the unique output traits—fully-resolved JSON Schema, inlined $ref pointers, preserved combinators—that distinguish this tool from sibling introspection tools. The scope ('one method') is explicit.

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 gives clear input-selection guidance ('Provide either operation_id (preferred) OR path (+ optional http_method)'), which helps the agent choose between parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus siblings like ozon_search_methods or ozon_get_related_methods. The usage context is implied rather than stated with alternatives or exclusions.

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