wb_card_recommendations_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-style operation on recommendations, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination, filtering behavior, required authorization, or any side effects. The brief noun phrase adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative. It front-loads the core concept but leaves out essential usage and parameter context.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what nm_id represents, what kind of recommendations are returned, and how this relates to wb_card_recommendations_set. The current text is too sparse to fully support correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0%, and the only required parameter, nm_id, is not explained at all. The description's phrase 'on a card' weakly implies nm_id identifies a card, but it never states the parameter's meaning, format, or acceptable values. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific resource ('recommended goods on a card, cross-sell') and the verb is implied by the tool name 'get'. It clearly identifies what data the tool returns and is distinguishable from the sibling wb_card_recommendations_set, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that wb_card_recommendations_set is for writing recommendations, nor does it describe prerequisites or typical call contexts. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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