ozon_get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by describing the rich return behavior: ordered steps, operation_ids, pagination/batching/concurrency guidance, recommended DB schema, and known gotchas. It also discloses conditional content for analytical workflows. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Get' and 'Returns' strongly imply a safe retrieval.

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 well-structured: a one-line primary purpose, a concise summary of return contents, and a focused Args section. No filler or repetition exists, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 present, the description is complete enough. It identifies the prerequisite source for the argument, gives representative examples, and summarizes the return value. Agents can confidently select and invoke this tool without needing additional context.

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 schema provides only a bare 'name' string with no description, so 0% schema coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that name is a workflow name from ozon_list_workflows and offering two realistic examples ('sync_orders_fbs', 'oos_risk_analysis'). This gives the agent the exact source and format of valid values.

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 the full step-by-step plan for one workflow.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ozon_list_workflows because it targets a single workflow rather than listing all workflows, and it does not overlap with method-focused siblings like ozon_describe_method.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after obtaining a workflow name from ozon_list_workflows. It gives concrete examples of valid names. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the one-workflow scope and prerequisite are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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