wb_advert_payments

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 disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only query through the word 'history,' but it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, nor does it cover pagination, response contents, or required permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The Russian parenthetical reinforces meaning without adding real clutter, and every part serves to explain 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 simple two-parameter history query, the description is minimally adequate: it names the domain, the date range, and the date format. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of explaining what the returned history contains or how the results are ordered/paged.

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 coverage is only 50%, with date_from described in the schema but date_to not described there. The description compensates by stating that both dates use YYYY-MM-DD, but it does not clarify inclusivity, date-range limits, or timezone behavior.

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 (ad account top-ups) and the operation (retrieving history for a date period). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like wb_advert_deposit or wb_advert_costs.

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 about when to use this tool versus similar advertising-finance tools. The phrase 'history for a period' implies a report-style lookup, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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