Get Warehouse Stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses stricter rate limits as a behavioral trait, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, have no side effects, or describe authentication requirements. The rate limit warning partially compensates for missing annotations.

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 three sentences that cover purpose, rate limits, and parameter usage. It is generally concise, though the last sentence could be slightly tightened. The critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides necessary context: purpose, rate limits, parameter defaults, and source of SKUs. It does not describe response structure or pagination details, but the schema covers limit/offset. Overall, it is adequately complete for an API tool in a known 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the warehouse_type default, specifying how to obtain SKUs (from get_stocks or list_products), and clarifying that skus is required with at least one item. This extra context improves understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed stock information for products in Ozon warehouses (FBO) and lists specific data points (free-to-sell, reserved, promised quantities, turnover data). This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stocks or list_products.

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 explains when to use the tool sparingly due to stricter rate limits and directs the agent to use get_stocks or list_products to obtain SKUs before calling this endpoint. It also clarifies the warehouse_type parameter with default value. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the guidance is sufficient.

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