wb_cards_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only discloses cursor pagination; it does not state whether the list includes active or trash cards, what the response contains, or any size/rate implications.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the action, includes a useful Russian translation, and adds the pagination hint. Every word earns its place.

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, and two object parameters are effectively opaque. The description does not explain the return shape, card status scope, or how to construct cursor/filter values, so it is not fully actionable.

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 view, cursor, and filter (75% coverage), while the description adds little beyond restating cursor pagination. It does not clarify the filter object structure or limit semantics, but the schema carries most of the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific action and resource ('List product cards') with a clarifying Russian gloss, and identifies cursor pagination. It is clearly distinct from mutation and single-card tools, but it does not differentiate from related list endpoints such as wb_cards_trash.

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 word 'List' implies the use case of retrieving product cards, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool routing. With such a large sibling set, it should ideally note that trash cards belong to wb_cards_trash and single-card lookup belongs to wb_card_detail.

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