ozon_get_swagger_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents (spec version, method count, refresh timestamp, SHA-256) and the error case ('{"error": "missing"}') with a version qualifier. It does not mention side effects or network behavior, but the tone and content make this a read-only metadata operation.

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 main purpose, followed by a tidy bullet list of use cases and a clear error note. Every sentence contributes information; the structure makes the content scannable without 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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what is returned, why it is useful, and what the failure mode looks like. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to explain about parameter semantics, and the description correctly focuses on the output. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 ('Return metadata') and a clear resource ('bundled Ozon swagger snapshots'), then lists the exact pieces of metadata delivered. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ozon_search_methods or ozon_describe_method, which operate on API operations rather than the snapshot itself.

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 'Useful for' section gives concrete, actionable scenarios: deciding whether to re-check docs online, validating a refresh, and including in bug reports. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection among siblings.

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