wb_card_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only check operation but never explicitly states that it is non-mutating, what data it returns, or whether it may have side effects. The description names the error categories but leaves core behavioral expectations implicit.

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, front-loaded with the P0 priority, and every phrase adds value: severity, scope of errors, and intended frequency. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource and the error categories included. However, with no output schema and no explicit statement of return format, count, or fields, an agent still lacks some context about what the tool actually returns.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. It correctly focuses on what the tool reports rather than on input configuration.

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 a specific resource (cards with errors) and the action ('Check'), and specifies the scope: blocked/rejected cards including IP-holder complaints. This distinguishes it from related card tools like wb_cards_list and wb_card_detail by focusing specifically on error states.

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 clear usage context: it is a P0 item to check regularly. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'Check regularly' provides concrete operational guidance.

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