wb_cards_limits

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 behavioral disclosure. It only restates a noun phrase and does not reveal whether this tool is read-only, mutates state, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is a serious transparency gap.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but the parenthetical Russian phrase largely duplicates the English phrase. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, lacking a clear verb or any operational detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the returned limits represent and what the agent should expect when invoking the tool. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to know what the call will produce.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or usage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps since there are none.

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 identifies the resource ('card create/edit limits') and suggests a domain, but it lacks a verb that tells the agent whether the tool retrieves, sets, or validates these limits. It does not meaningfully distinguish itself from sibling card tools such as wb_cards_create or wb_cards_update, so much is left to inference from the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large list of sibling card tools, the description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when 'limits' is the relevant operation.

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