wb_feedbacks_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Feedback list.' and adds a business rationale; it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, default take behavior, sorting, or any side effects or limits.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The second sentence about rating and conversion provides loose context but does not explain tool behavior or parameters, so it does not earn its place as operational guidance.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least say it returns feedback entries and explain how the filters relate to the request. The current description leaves return values, filtering behavior, and pagination mostly implicit.

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 schema already documents nm_id and is_answered, but the description adds no meaning for any parameter. In particular, 'take' has no description anywhere, and the description does not help clarify whether it is a page size or a fetch limit. The description's contribution beyond the schema is minimal.

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 (feedbacks) and implies a list operation, but it is mostly a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name. It lacks a clear active verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling feedback tools like wb_feedbacks_count or wb_feedbacks_archive.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement that unanswered negatives cut rating and conversion hints at a business use case, but it never tells the agent to use this tool to find unanswered or negative feedback, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred alternatives.

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