wb_fbw_acceptance_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only hints that this is an availability lookup. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or how it behaves when a barcode has no acceptance options. This is a significant gap for a tool whose safety profile is otherwise undocumented.

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 sentence with no filler; the core output ('warehouses and packaging types') is front-loaded and the barcode input is stated. The Russian parenthetical is slightly redundant but earns its place as a domain disambiguator for the acceptance-options concept.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and input, making a correct invocation plausible. However, it omits usage context, response shape, and details of the optional warehouse_id parameter, and with no annotations these gaps are not filled elsewhere, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; both 'items' and 'warehouse_id' already carry short descriptions. The description adds mild extra context by tying 'by barcodes' to the items parameter and 'warehouses' to warehouse_id, but it does not clarify whether warehouse_id is a filter or a required context, so the added value over the schema is limited.

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 states a specific resource and scope: warehouses and packaging types available for an FBW supply, keyed by barcodes, with the Russian gloss 'варианты приёмки' (acceptance options) adding domain context. The verb is implicit ('available' rather than 'get'/'list'), so it stops short of a fully explicit action, but it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wb_fbw_warehouses or wb_acceptance_coefficients.

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 no guidance on when to call this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as wb_fbw_warehouses or wb_supply_create, nor any preconditions like having barcodes ready or whether warehouse_id is needed. An agent is left to infer the use case from the tool name and one-line description.

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