wb_acceptance_coefficients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds genuinely useful context: the [P0] priority marker and the important warning that the tool is temporarily disabled by WB. It also explains how to interpret coefficient values returned. However, it does not disclose response structure or whether results are filtered or paginated, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 [P0] marker and core resource statement come first, followed by the crucial coefficient semantics, then the disabled warning. Every sentence earns its place. The parenthetical Russian translation '(коэффициенты приёмки)' is mildly redundant but adds localization value without bloating the text.

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 read tool with one optional filter and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: the 14-day scope, the meaning of coefficient values (which effectively serves as the return-value contract), and the temporary disabled status. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though a stated return format would make it fully complete.

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 100%, with warehouse_ids already documented as 'warehouse filter,' so the schema handles the parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that, but its explanation of the coefficient value meanings indirectly helps an agent understand what the data represents after filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as warehouse acceptance coefficients covering a 14-day window and goes further to explain the value semantics (0/1 with allowUnload=true means acceptance is open; x2-x7 multiplies cost). This makes the tool's purpose clear. It loses a point because it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as wb_fbw_acceptance_options or wb_analytics_acceptance.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The closing note 'Temporarily disabled by WB itself' is an availability warning, not usage guidance. Given there are related sibling tools (wb_fbw_acceptance_options, wb_analytics_acceptance), an agent receives no help choosing among them.

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