wb_analytics_stocks_sizes

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

The description communicates a useful behavioral trait: the report is split by size and highlights non-liquid ('dead') sizes. The word 'report' also implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose how date filters, nm_ids, or limit affect behavior, or what the returned report contains.

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 focused sentence, front-loading the core purpose ('stock and turnover report split by size') before adding the dead-sizes finding. The Russian parenthetical adds clarity without significant bloat.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether nm_ids is required to get meaningful results, what date range is expected, how limit affects output, or what the report shape looks like. It is minimally selectable but not sufficiently invocable with confidence.

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 nm_ids described only as 'filter'. The description does not explain limit, date_from, or date_to, nor how they interact with the size-split report. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but provides no parameter-specific guidance.

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 identifies the resource (stock and turnover report), the grouping dimension (by size), and the intended analytical purpose (finds dead sizes / non-liquid leftovers). This distinguishes it from the closely named sibling wb_analytics_stocks, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 the tool should be used when size-level stock and turnover analysis is needed, especially for spotting dead sizes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wb_analytics_stocks or other analytics siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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