wb_fbw_supply_detail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'details' weakly implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, what data is returned, whether it causes side effects, or how errors are handled.

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-loaded, stating the resource and detail level immediately. The Russian parenthetical is redundant with the English phrase but not harmful; overall the text is compact and easy to scan.

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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer that supplying a supply ID returns detailed FBW supply information. However, it omits what 'details' actually includes, whether the operation is safe/read-only, and how it relates to the very similar sibling wb_supply_detail.

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 0%, and the description does not mention supply_id at all. The parameter name is self-descriptive and the schema declares it as a required integer, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 supply) and the output granuality (details), and the 'FBW' qualifier helps distinguish it from the sibling wb_supply_detail. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit operation statement such as 'retrieves' or 'gets', so it does not fully clarify what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus wb_supply_detail, wb_fbw_supplies, or wb_fbw_supply_goods. The description contains no when-to-use context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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