wb_advert_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output shape, whether it returns a list or a single cluster, pagination behavior, or any dependencies on campaign type or state. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource. The parenthetical adds useful domain context, though the 'P0' prefix is operational noise rather than functional description. Overall it is appropriately sized 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It identifies the resource but leaves important operational details, such as what the returned clusters contain and how to interpret the response, completely unspecified. An agent would struggle to know exactly what to expect from the call.

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?

The schema has one required integer parameter, advert_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what advert_id represents beyond the vague phrase 'of a campaign,' leaving the agent to infer that it is the campaign identifier. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description compensates for the missing schema documentation only minimally.

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 a specific action ('Search') and a resource ('clusters of a campaign'), and the parenthetical clarifies these are search clusters/SEO queries. It is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related cluster tools like wb_advert_clusters_stats or wb_advert_cluster_bids.

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_clusters_stats or wb_advert_cluster_bids. The note that it replaced keyword phrases in 2026 offers some context about its domain, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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