wb_analytics_grouped_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool groups data, uses daily granularity, and compares periods, which is useful. However, it does not explain what the output looks like, how comparison is represented, or whether there are request constraints.

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-loaded, with the main scope in the first clause. The parenthetical Russian phrase repeats the English content and adds little value, but overall the description is efficiently sized.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return structure, how period comparison is configured, or what the optional aggregation_level can be set to, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'by product groups' to nm_ids and 'per day' to aggregation_level, but it leaves date_from/date_to semantics, date formats, and aggregation_level values unexplained. The mapping is too vague to fully support correct invocation.

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 tool's function: it returns a sales funnel grouped by product groups and day, and compares periods. This distinguishes it from siblings like wb_analytics_history and wb_analytics_detail, which do not explicitly signal product-group or period-comparison behavior.

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 when to use it—when sales-funnel data by product groups and daily period comparison is needed—but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives. An agent can infer the use case, but the guidance is not direct.

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