wb_finance_report_detailed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does add useful behavior: report contents and the rrd_id pagination mechanism. However, it does not disclose read-only status, response format, rate limits, or the meaning of P0, and it leaves the view/limit effects to the schema.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the operation and key content categories. The 'P0' prefix and parenthetical Russian gloss are minor noise but do not seriously hurt scannability.

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 and no annotations, this short description leaves an agent without guidance on how limit and rrd_id interact, what the response shape looks like, or how report_id is sourced. It is enough to guess the call, but not enough to invoke it robustly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain report_id ('by reportId') and rrd_id ('Paginate via rrd_id'), but it ignores limit entirely and adds nothing to view beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states the tool returns a detailed realization report by reportId and enumerates its sections (commissions, logistics, storage, penalties, payout). The word 'detail' hints at differentiation from wb_finance_report/wb_finance_reports_list, but it never names a sibling or states the exact operation verb.

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 only usage guidance is pagination via rrd_id; there is no explicit when-to-use versus the closely related finance tools in the sibling list. It does not say how to obtain a report_id (e.g., from wb_finance_reports_list) or when to choose this over wb_finance_report.

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