wb_feedbacks_count_period

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does indicate the result is a count of feedbacks and mentions Unix ts and isAnswered filtering, suggesting a read-only aggregation. However, it does not clarify date-bound inclusivity, default behavior of is_answered, or response shape.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical Russian duplicate does not add new information, making it slightly redundant, but overall it is efficient.

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 count tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential action and some parameter context. It is minimally sufficient, but gaps remain around parameter requirements, date semantics, and how this tool relates to the sibling count endpoints.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning by labeling the period as Unix ts and identifying is_answered as a filter, but it does not explain whether date_to/date_from are required, how they interact, or default values.

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 clearly identifies the operation as a count of feedbacks over a period, with Unix timestamp and an isAnswered filter. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic feedback list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling wb_feedbacks_count.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_feedbacks_count, wb_feedbacks_list, or wb_questions_count_period. The description implies a period-based count but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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