wb_analytics_item_rating

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add useful constraints: the 'Max 1000 nmID' limit and the 'Jam subscription' requirement are genuine behavioral traits. However, it fails to disclose the time window covered (the schema has no date parameter), which is significant for an analytics tool, and the cryptic 'Jam' reference is unexplained.

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 compact—four short fragments—and front-loads the core metrics list before constraints. The Russian parenthetical is mildly redundant for English readers and 'Jam subscription' is terse to the point of obscurity, but overall every sentence earns its place without padding.

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 the minimal structured context (1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is the sole information source and it covers the essentials: what it returns, the input limit, and a prerequisite. It remains incomplete because the reporting period is never addressed and the tool's relationship to the crowded analytics/stats sibling group is not clarified.

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, and it does add meaning: 'Max 1000 nmID' is a critical constraint on the array parameter and the Russian parenthetical 'рейтинг товаров, конверсия' clarifies the domain. Still, it doesn't explain what an nmID represents (product/article IDs), whether they must be the seller's own items, or value bounds, leaving the single parameter only partially documented.

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 states a clear resource ('Item rating') and enumerates the metrics returned (card views, cart adds, orders, conversions), so an agent knows what data to expect. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('get'/'fetch'), and the tool is not explicitly differentiated from the many sibling analytics/stats tools, though the 'rating/conversion' focus is distinctive.

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?

Usage context is implied: 'Low conversion signals a card or price problem' hints at diagnosing product performance issues, and 'Jam subscription' hints at a prerequisite. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings like wb_stats_sales, wb_stats_orders, or wb_nm_report, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions.

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