wb_advert_clusters_stats

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the schema — that daily=true produces per-day rows — and the phrase 'for a period' implies a date-range query. But it never states the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or how the nm_ids filter changes results, which for a stats tool are material expectations.

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 tight two-clause sentence with the core action front-loaded before the parameter hint. The only questionable inclusion is the redundant Russian parenthetical 'статистика кластеров,' which restates the tool name without adding information for an agent.

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 four of five parameters undocumented in the schema, the description leaves too much to inference: the shape of the returned stats, the date format, the semantics of advert_id, and the meaning of 'clusters' in the advertising context are all unspecified. It covers the basic idea but is not enough for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.

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 only 20% (just nm_ids: 'offer_id filter'), so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains daily's effect (per-day rows) and implies date_from/date_to define the period. However, advert_id — a required parameter — is left completely undefined in both schema and description, and the expected date string format is never mentioned.

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 cluster stats') on a defined resource ('cluster stats') within a defined scope ('for a period'), so an agent can tell this is a read operation over a time range. However, it never contrasts with the nearby siblings wb_advert_stats, wb_advert_clusters, or wb_advert_cluster_bids, so differentiation must be inferred from the name alone.

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 only usage direction is 'daily=true for per-day rows,' which is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. No alternatives are named, no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions are given, and the agent gets no clue whether this or wb_advert_stats is the right choice for a given query.

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