wb_feedbacks_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating these are archived, previously answered feedbacks, which implies this is a read-oriented archive operation. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or auth needs.

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 very short and front-loads the core concept 'Archived feedbacks'. The parenthetical Russian phrase adds minor ambiguity, but the sentence is not verbose and every major clause contributes to identifying the tool's scope.

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 list-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is not operationally complete. It communicates the conceptual domain but leaves out return format, pagination behavior, and how skip/take should be used, which are important for calling the tool correctly.

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 only 33%, with only nm_id described. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance and does not compensate for the undocumented skip and take parameters, so an agent is left to infer their purpose from names and defaults.

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 as archived feedbacks that were previously answered and explicitly contrasts it with wb_feedbacks_list. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'gets', but the intended operation is reasonably clear from the tool name and context.

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 names wb_feedbacks_list as the key alternative and distinguishes this tool by the 'archived / previously answered' scope. This gives an agent a usable basis for choosing between the two, though it does not explicitly discuss other feedback endpoints or edge cases.

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