wb_advert_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose a rate limit, a maximum date range, and that results include a per-day breakdown. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, nor what happens when the rate/period limits are exceeded, which leaves some 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 compact and front-loads the key output metrics before constraints and interpretation. The Russian parenthetical is mildly redundant, but the whole text is short and every major fact (metrics, daily breakdown, rate limit, period, profitability heuristic) is present without padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a useful but incomplete picture: it lists metrics, mentions daily breakdown, and sets limits, but does not clarify the response structure beyond 'days[]' or error behavior when constraints are violated. For a read-only stats endpoint with only three parameters, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 67%, with date_from and advert_ids documented but date_to not described. The description adds some meaning by specifying the 31-day period constraint and naming the metrics, but it does not define the exact formats or the shape of the returned daily breakdown, so parameter semantics are only partially enriched.

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 the tool as returning campaign statistics and enumerates the specific metrics (spend, views, clicks, CTR, CPC, orders, revenue) plus a daily breakdown, so an agent can tell it is a stats/reporting tool. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' and does not name sibling tools, but the metric list makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when campaign advertising metrics are needed, and it gives concrete constraints: a 3 req/min limit and a maximum period of 31 days. It does not state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as wb_advert_costs or wb_advert_clusters_stats, so alternative selection guidance is missing.

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