wb_finance_acquiring_detailed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a date-filtered read operation but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how pagination via limit works, the meaning of rrd_id, or what response format to expect.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the Russian parenthetical is a useful cross-language clarification. The core meaning is front-loaded, though the brevity sacrifices explanatory value.

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 4-parameter endpoint with no output schema or annotations, this description is too sparse. Date formats, pagination behavior, rrd_id semantics, and the distinction from the acquiring_list variant are all missing, so an agent would likely need external documentation.

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 25% (just date_from's format), and the description compensates minimally by framing date_from/date_to as a period. It does not explain limit's pagination role or what rrd_id identifies, both of which are non-obvious for this endpoint.

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 a specific resource—detailed acquiring costs within a date period—and the word 'detailing' helps separate it from the list-style sibling wb_finance_acquiring_list. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' and it does not distinctly differentiate from wb_finance_report_detailed.

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 given for when to choose this tool over wb_finance_acquiring_list, wb_finance_report_detailed, or wb_finance_report. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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