wb_dbs_groups_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does add a useful limit ('max 1000'), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, how errors or empty results are handled, or whether additional authorization or context is needed. The limit alone is not enough to compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key semantic information is front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but for a one-parameter tool it is appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavioral expectations. It implies the result is a delivery cost but does not specify whether the output is a single total, a per-group list, or something else. The low parameter count prevents this from being a 1, but the missing response and context information leaves a significant gap.

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 provides only 'array of strings' for group_ids with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by indicating the parameter represents group IDs and by specifying a maximum of 1000 entries. However, it does not clarify the expected ID format, whether the IDs need to be unique, or how the returned cost maps back to each input group.

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 ('paid delivery cost'), the grouping dimension ('by groupId'), and adds a functional limit ('max 1000'). It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name wb_dbs_groups_info and the noun phrase make the retrieval intent clear enough. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but it names a distinct domain (dbs group cost) within the large sibling set.

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 the many sibling tools such as wb_dbs_orders_* or wb_finance_*. The description states what the tool does but not when it should be selected, what alternatives exist, or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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