ozon_list_methods_for_subscription

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 handles this well by disclosing that tiers are auto-extracted from documentation, calling the result a 'hint, not a contract', and warning that the actual 403 set may differ. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to avoid over-trusting the output.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, followed by practical use cases, a critical caveat, and parameter values. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of structured data.

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 present, the description covers purpose, when to use it, the main reliability caveat, and the complete set of valid parameter values. Nothing necessary for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare string type. It does so by enumerating the valid tier values: UNSPECIFIED, PREMIUM_LITE, PREMIUM, PREMIUM_PLUS, and PREMIUM_PRO, and by tying them to subscription tiers in the usage examples. This adds real meaning beyond the input 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all Ozon methods that mention a specific subscription tier.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ozon_search_methods or ozon_get_related_methods by focusing on subscription-tier membership, and it reinforces this with concrete user questions.

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 clear when-to-use guidance through examples like 'what extra capabilities do I unlock by upgrading to Premium Plus?' and 'which methods will fail without Premium?'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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