wb_deductions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a concrete server-side behavior ('WB rejects the call without date_from'), which goes beyond the schema. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a simple read endpoint this is a meaningful disclosure.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the operational requirement stated immediately after. The first sentence is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, which prevents a top score, but there is no filler.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with three flat parameters and no nested objects: the agent knows what the tool covers and that both dates are mandatory. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description would benefit from at least a note about what is returned and how limit applies.

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 coverage is only 67% because limit has no description. The description's parameter-related text mostly restates the required fields already present in the schema and adds nothing about the undocumented limit parameter or its behavior.

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 a specific resource: 'Deductions for substitutions and wrong contents' with a Russian gloss, which clearly distinguishes it from generic finance or report siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', so the operation is left implicit.

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 gives clear operational guidance: both dates are required, and WB will reject the call without date_from. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is specific enough that no obvious sibling competes with it.

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