wb_advert_count

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 explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool provides counts by type and status but does not describe the return structure, whether it is read-only, or what 'get all campaign IDs' actually means behaviorally. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely brief and front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical Russian translation and the 'use to get all campaign IDs' clause add some redundancy and ambiguity, but the overall structure wastes little space.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it should clarify whether the result is a count, a list of IDs, or both. The ambiguous phrasing leaves an agent uncertain about the exact return value and how to consume it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter details to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps here.

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 a specific resource ('campaigns') and operation ('counts by type and status'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_advert_list or wb_advert_stats. However, the added phrase 'use to get all campaign IDs' muddles whether this tool returns counts or IDs, preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_advert_list or wb_advert_stats. The clause 'use to get all campaign IDs' provides an intended use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or why an agent should prefer this tool over siblings.

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