wb_advert_bids_recommendations

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. Saying 'recommended bids' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state whether the tool retrieves, calculates, or returns anything, nor does it mention side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior. This is nearly tautological with the tool name.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. The Russian parenthetical adds a helpful localization cue without bloating the text. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what a caller should expect in the response, whether the operation is safe/read-only, or any constraints on the IDs. An agent could select the tool, but would lack important details for a fully informed invocation.

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. It adds some domain meaning by linking nm_id to 'card' and advert_id to 'campaign', which helps interpret the bare integer parameters. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its role, state expected formats, or explain how the two IDs interact.

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's resource and output: recommended bids for a card in a campaign. It distinguishes itself from the sibling wb_advert_bids_set by signaling a read/recommendation operation rather than a write operation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_advert_bids_set or wb_advert_cluster_bids. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and minimal description.

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