wb_analytics_antifraud

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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the weekly publication cadence. It does not explain whether the returned deductions are negative amounts, whether the data is cumulative, what authentication or scoping is required, or what happens for dates when no report was published.

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 a parenthetical translation, making it compact and easy to scan. It wastes no words, though its brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and behavioral detail.

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 and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the date parameter semantics and the nature of the returned data. It only states topic and weekly publication, leaving an agent uncertain about exactly how to invoke the tool and what to expect.

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 schema documents only the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and the description does not clarify what date should be supplied: the Wednesday publication date, the deduction occurrence date, or a request date. The 'published on Wednesdays' hint implies a constraint but does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning, leaving a critical ambiguity for a single-argument tool.

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 analytic resource: deductions for self-buyouts, and adds a distinguishing cadence ('published on Wednesdays'). This separates it from generic finance or deduction siblings like wb_deductions. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so the action remains implied rather than stated.

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 'published on Wednesdays' clause gives temporal usage context, suggesting this is a weekly-scheduled report rather than a real-time endpoint. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related finance or deduction tools, nor does it clarify behavior when the requested date is not a Wednesday.

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