wb_analytics_brand_share

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does add useful behavior constraints: the date range is capped at 365 days and the call depends on parent and brand values from sibling tools. However, it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what response shape to expect, or how invalid inputs are handled.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose and time constraint, followed by the key input dependency. The Russian parenthetical '(доля бренда)' is mildly redundant but not confusing. Overall this is efficient and easy to scan.

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 should cover return values and call expectations more fully. It explains where parent_id and brand come from and the date limit, but it does not describe what the tool returns, the format of date_to, or the exact sibling tool names. This leaves an agent under-informed for a four-parameter tool.

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 25%, with date_from having a format description and the other three parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates by identifying parent_id and brand as coming from sibling tools, but it uses 'parentId' instead of the schema's 'parent_id' and leaves date_to/date_from semantics mostly to inference beyond the 365-day cap. This is not enough for the low coverage level.

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 clearly indicates the tool concerns 'brand share in a category' and adds the 365-day time limit. It also references the brand_share_parents/brands tools, which helps distinguish this report tool from the sibling tools that supply its inputs. A more explicit verb such as 'get' or 'calculate' would have made it a 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance: the caller needs parentId and brand values obtained from the brand_share_parents/brands tools before invoking this tool. This establishes the prerequisite workflow clearly. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative report tool, but the context is sufficient.

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