wb_advert_available_nms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-like operation by saying goods are 'available', but it does not explicitly state that it returns a list, how results are structured, whether pagination applies, or any side effects. For an unannotated tool, this is too thin.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is more of a fragment than a structured definition, but it is appropriately short for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context, yet it leaves the return format, parameter meaning, and relationship to sibling tools largely implicit. An agent might be able to guess what the tool does, but not confidently invoke it without additional assumptions.

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, but it only says 'by subject IDs'. This essentially restates the parameter name and does not explain what subject IDs represent, how many can be passed, or what happens with invalid or empty values. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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 that the tool returns goods available for advertising campaigns, filtered by subject IDs. The resource (goods/nomenclatures for ads) and the scope (by subject IDs) are identifiable, and it is distinguishable from advert-listing or subject-listing tools. It loses a point because there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', though the meaning is still clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_advert_subjects, wb_advert_list, or wb_advert_create. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the intended usage from the name and context.

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