ozon_list_operations_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses pagination via limit/offset and the side effect of include_chunk_ids (avoiding overly large context). Being a list operation, read-only behavior is reasonably inferable.

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: purpose first, then usage intent, followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or duplication of schema-only information.

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?

All five optional parameters are semantically explained, the use case is clear, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining query, module, limit, offset, and include_chunk_ids, including defaults and the rationale for the chunk ID flag.

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 ('列出') and a concrete resource: the Chinese Ozon operations knowledge base's course catalog and topics. It also states filtering capabilities, making its scope distinct from the search/retrieval sibling 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 says the tool is for understanding knowledge base coverage, and lists the available filters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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