ozon_search_methods

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 BM25 ranking algorithm, field boosting weights, Russian/English stemming support, and available filters. This goes well beyond a basic statement and gives an agent realistic expectations about search behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose, followed by relevant search behavior details, then a compact argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers search semantics, all parameters, and filtering options. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return format is acceptable. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling search/knowledge tools, but overall it is close to complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It explains query with examples, describes section, api, safety, and limit, and even specifies allowed values such as 'read', 'write', and 'destructive'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 immediately states a specific action — full-text search across all Ozon API methods — and identifies the exact searched fields (operation_id, path, summary, description, section, tag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ozon_list_sections or 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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find API methods by free-text query. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as ozon_search_operations_knowledge or ozon_get_related_methods, nor does it state any exclusions.

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