wb_analytics_acceptance

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

The description discloses 'Task-based, 10-60 s', which adds useful asynchronous behavior context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not explain what task-based means in practice, whether a polling step is needed, or how the final report is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no filler. The task-based runtime hint and parenthetical clarification earn their place without bloating the description.

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 task-based report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to retrieve the finished report, what the response contains, or the meaning of the two required date parameters, leaving an agent uncertain about the full invocation flow.

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 0% and the description does not mention date_from or date_to at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value about expected date formats, ranges, or constraints.

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 paid acceptance report at WB warehouses, naming the resource and domain clearly. It lacks an explicit verb like 'generates' or 'retrieves', but combined with the tool name it is understandable. It is specific enough to generally distinguish from finance and warehouse sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_fbw_acceptance_options, wb_acceptance_coefficients, or other wb_analytics_* tools. The description does not state when this report is appropriate or when it should be avoided.

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