wb_finance_acquiring_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 offers only a hint that the tool involves cost reports/fees, suggesting a read operation, but it does not state whether it is read-only, how results are paginated, what date ranges mean, whether periods are aggregated, or what the response contains. This is far below what is needed without annotations.

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 extremely short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It is a fragment that skips the verb and necessary operational context, so brevity comes at the expense of usefulness.

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 tool with five parameters, two required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It does not explain the required date range, the period format/values, pagination behavior, or the return shape. The existence of a closely related sibling (wb_finance_acquiring_detailed) makes this incompleteness even more harmful.

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 20% (only date_from has 'YYYY-MM-DD'), so the description must add meaning for the five parameters. It does not mention date_from, date_to, limit, offset, or period at all, and it does not explain the default 'weekly' aggregation or the pagination semantics. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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 acquiring cost reports and card payment fees (эквайринг), which points at the finance domain. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb ('list', 'get', 'retrieve'), and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling wb_finance_acquiring_detailed. The purpose is vaguely inferable but not clearly stated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_finance_acquiring_detailed, wb_finance_report, or wb_finance_balance. The short phrase implies it deals with acquiring reports, but it does not provide any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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