wb_fbw_supplies

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure, and it does state the key trait: read-only, with creation explicitly outside this tool. The portal note clarifies that no write action is available here. It does not mention response shape or pagination, but for a simple read-only listing tool this is a minor gap.

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 that front-loads the resource and read-only nature, then adds the creation boundary and the clarifying Russian term. There is no filler, repeated schema information, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The definition is enough to select the tool and call it with defaults, but it does not explicitly state that it returns a list, nor does it clarify the meaning of status_ids in this domain. Without an output schema, a bit more return-shape or filtering context would make the definition fully complete.

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 33% and the description adds no parameter detail. The status_ids parameter is only described as 'status filter', which is too vague to be actionable, and limit/offset semantics are left entirely to inference. Because schema coverage is low, the description was responsible for compensating and did not.

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 ('FBW supplies to WB warehouses') and marks it as read-only, making the retrieval intent reasonably clear. The seller-portal note further distinguishes it from supply creation. It falls short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get' and does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from.

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 context about the tool's scope and explicitly tells the agent that creation happens in the seller portal, which is a useful when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not name API alternatives like wb_supplies_list or wb_fbw_supply_detail, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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