wb_analytics_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint (3 req/min) and indicates that results are compared to the previous period. However, it does not clarify response shape, aggregation behavior, authentication needs, or how the 'vs previous period' comparison is calculated.

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 dense sentence with the core metrics front-loaded and the rate limit appended. The Russian parenthetical 'воронка продаж' is slightly redundant with 'Sales funnel', but it does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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 5-parameter analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain what the return payload looks like, whether product filters are required, how date_to/date_from interact, or how this differs from adjacent analytics tools in the large sibling list.

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 60%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'per product', which loosely maps to nm_ids. Required date_to and the limit parameter remain undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for those gaps.

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 states the resource ('sales funnel per product') and enumerates the delivered metrics: views, clicks, cart, orders, revenue, conversions, and previous-period comparison. It does not use a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from analytics siblings such as wb_analytics_history or wb_nm_report, but the per-product funnel framing gives reasonable purpose clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many analytics alternatives, no mention of required input conditions (e.g., must filter by nm_ids or brand_names), and no exclusions. The 'Limit 3 req/min' note is a rate-limit constraint, not usage guidance.

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