wb_api_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the content type (seller news, API announcements) and the practical purpose (checking for breaking changes), which is useful. It does not mention output format, pagination, or whether the from_date filter is inclusive, but for a simple news-reading tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler: it names the resource, states the relevant content, gives the practical use case, and even adds a Russian-language hint. Every element contributes value, and the key integration-risk purpose is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It communicates what the news is about and why an integrator would call it. A minor gap is the lack of any hint about the response structure, but for a simple news listing this is not a blocking omission.

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?

The schema already describes from_date as 'news since YYYY-MM-DD' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics fully, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 as WB seller news with a focus on API change announcements, and frames it as a way to check for integration-breaking changes. It is distinguishable from all listed sibling tools, none of which target news or API updates. It lacks a direct action verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the intent is unambiguous.

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 checking for integration-breaking changes announced via WB seller news. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, so the guidance is adequate. Absence of exclusions or alternative routing keeps it at a mid score.

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