wb_fbw_warehouses

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and directly discloses a key behavioral trait: the endpoint is disabled by WB and returns an explanation, not data. This is precisely the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 statement with no filler: first the resource and scope, then the current operational status. Both sentences earn their place.

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 zero-parameter, disabled endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what the resource is, that it is disabled, and what the caller will receive. An agent has enough information to avoid misusing it.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. Per the 0-param baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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: WB warehouses for FBW supplies (склады FBW), and the parenthetical plus the sibling context distinguish it from general wb_warehouses. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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 important context that the tool is temporarily disabled and will return an explanation rather than data, implying it should not be used as a data source. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when this tool should be used instead of a sibling.

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