wb_banned_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool concerns blocked or shadowed cards hidden from the catalogue, but it does not state whether the tool returns data, requires authentication, has pagination, or is read-only. The operation remains ambiguous.

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 with no filler, and the core concept is front-loaded. However, it is a noun fragment without an explicit predicate, and the '[P0]' prefix adds operational priority rather than behavioral value for an agent.

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 simple tool with one optional boolean parameter, the schema plus description is enough to make a basic invocation. But there is no output schema and no description of the return format, and the lack of usage guidance leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage and clearly documents the only parameter: shadowed=true for shadowed, false for blocked. The description adds no meaningful detail beyond this, matching the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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: blocked or shadowed cards hidden from the catalogue, which distinguishes it from tools like wb_cards_list, wb_cards_trash, and wb_card_errors. However, it lacks a direct action verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the intended operation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'lost sales' hints at a business context, but the description does not say under what circumstances an agent should invoke this tool instead of a related one.

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