ozon_get_operations_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '读取' (read) makes the read-only nature clear, and the purpose (retrieve full evidence) is transparent. It does not mention edge cases like missing chunk_id, but for a simple retrieval operation this is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives usage context, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and where the parameter comes from. 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?

The input schema provides only the type and name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the source of chunk_id ('来自搜索结果的chunk_id字段'), which adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('读取'/read) and resource ('完整的Ozon运营知识片段'/complete Ozon operations knowledge fragment), and clearly ties it to the search sibling. An agent can distinguish it from ozon_search_operations_knowledge and other getter tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: after ozon_search_operations_knowledge returns relevant chunk_id, and why: to obtain complete evidence and organize customer answers. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly defines the alternative search tool.

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