ozon_get_related_methods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the auto-extraction source, the directional nature of the links (outgoing and incoming), and the max_hops traversal behavior. It stops short of stating read-only or error/edge behavior, but the operation is clearly a read-style exploration tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates with mechanics and a usage rationale, then documents args. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter exploration tool with an output schema, the description covers what, why, and how. It could add edge-case details like valid values or practical limits for max_hops, but the core calling context is complete.

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%, but the Args section compensates fully by defining operation_id as 'source method' and max_hops as '1 = direct neighbours, 2 = neighbours of neighbours.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 states the specific verb 'Find methods related to a given one' and defines what 'related' means: methods linked in the operation's description plus methods that link back to it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/describe tools by mechanism (doc links + workflows).

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding which calls you'll likely need together when integrating a feature.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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