wb_question_get

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 implies a retrieval operation through the tool name and the 'one ... by ID' wording, but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether replies or status are included, or how errors and missing IDs behave.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler words or redundant phrases beyond the clarifying Russian parenthetical. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID tool, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the core resource and how to select it, which is the minimum needed to invoke the tool. It does not describe the return value shape or any additional context about buyer questions, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented question_id parameter. The phrase 'by ID' confirms that question_id is the identifier used to select the question, which adds a little meaning beyond the property name. It still does not explain the expected format, source, or any constraints beyond the schema's string type.

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 identifies the resource as a single buyer question and the selector as its ID, so an agent can tell this is a singular fetch operation. It does not explicitly include a verb like 'get' in the description itself, though the tool name supplies it. It is clear enough to be distinguished from list/count siblings, even though it does not name them.

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 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has a specific buyer-question ID and needs that one record. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools, such as wb_questions_list or wb_question_reply, are preferable in other cases.

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