wb_paid_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that the report identifies direct losses, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the report contains, how dates are interpreted, or any limitations. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with a priority tag and useful business context. It is front-loaded and contains no filler; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation, the description leaves important gaps: what the report returns, how the date range is applied, and how the 'direct losses' interpretation should affect the agent's use. It identifies the tool's domain but is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 documents date_from's YYYY-MM-DD format but leaves date_to undocumented. The description mentions neither parameter and adds no date-format, range, or filtering semantics. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional value 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 a paid-storage report and explains its business meaning: goods with no sales and high storage cost are direct losses. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not explicitly distinguish it from storage-related siblings such as wb_warehouse_remains.

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 phrase 'paid storage report' implies this tool should be used when the user needs paid-storage cost or loss analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, but the specialized name gives a usable context.

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