wb_analytics_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states the report's subject and categories; it does not disclose output format, pagination, performance characteristics, side effects, or any operational behavior. 'Interactive' is vague and not actionable for an agent.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's core purpose and includes useful category vocabulary. The word 'interactive' adds little value, but overall there is no wasteful or repetitive text.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 25% parameter coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the required date_from/date_to inputs, the meaning of limit or nm_ids, or what the returned report looks like. An agent would have to guess critical details before calling the 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 description coverage is only 25%, with date_from, date_to, and limit lacking descriptions. The tool description does not explain what these parameters mean, how dates should be formatted, how the limit applies, or what nm_ids filters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 resource—stock and turnover reports—and adds the meaningful distinction of categorizing goods as healthy, scarce, and dead. It lacks an explicit verb but 'report' implies a read-style output. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wb_analytics_stocks_sizes or wb_stats_stocks, though its categories add some differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_stats_stocks or wb_analytics_stocks_sizes. There are no exclusions, no mention of required date context, and no indication of what distinguishes this report from similar analytics tools.

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