ozon_get_examples

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. It adds value by stating the examples are 'real, validated payloads matching the method's request schema,' which is a meaningful guarantee. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, whether multiple examples are returned, or any limitations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical usage hint. There is no filler or repetition; every clause contributes meaningful 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys the purpose and the nature of the returned data. However, it omits how to discover a valid operation_id and offers no context about when this tool is the right choice, leaving an agent partially under-informed.

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 for the undocumented operation_id parameter. It only loosely ties the parameter to 'one method' and doesn't explain what the ID looks like or where to obtain it. This leaves a significant gap for an agent selecting a value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('hand-crafted request examples for one method'), making it clear that this tool returns example payloads rather than descriptions or schemas. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like describe_method or search_methods, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. The phrase 'copy them as starting points for your own calls' explains how to use the result, not when to invoke the tool. It also doesn't mention how to find a valid operation_id via related tools.

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