wb_finance_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the report's content scope and implies a summary-level view by pointing to the detailed siblings, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, date handling, or the impact of view/limit/rrd_id. This gives partial transparency with notable gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The priority marker, metric list, Russian clarification, and sibling pointer all add useful information in a scannable, front-loaded structure.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters at only 40% schema coverage, the tool definition leaves too much unspecified for reliable invocation. The sibling pointer helps, but an agent still lacks guidance on pagination, response format, and the meaning of limit and rrd_id.

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 40%, and the description does not compensate: date_to, limit, and rrd_id remain unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description only reinforces the date-range context and does not clarify view's behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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, a realization report for a period, and lists the included metrics: commissions, logistics, storage, penalties, and payout. It also names the siblings that provide more detail, making it easy to distinguish this summary report from wb_finance_reports_list and 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?

The description explicitly routes the agent to wb_finance_reports_list and wb_finance_report_detailed 'for detail', implying that this tool is the appropriate choice for the high-level/summary report. It lacks a fuller when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement, but the sibling guidance provides clear context.

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