wb_chat_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal cursor-based pagination behavior and that events are new messages, but it does not describe the response shape, event fields, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before pagination details. The Russian parenthetical '(события чатов)' duplicates 'chat events' and adds no information, but overall the text is efficient.

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-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the essential invocation pattern. However, since there is no output schema, the lack of detail about what the response contains and how 'next' appears in that response leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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 next_cursor as 'cursor from previous response,' and the description adds the crucial rule to omit it on the first call. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the pagination lifecycle.

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 as chat events/new messages and adds pagination context, making the tool's basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as wb_chat_send or wb_buyer_chats.

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 provides clear operational guidance: 'first call without next, then next from the response.' This tells the caller exactly how to drive the paginated flow, though it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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