wb_questions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain pagination behavior, filtering semantics, response composition, or any operational constraints such as rate limits.

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 a single short phrase with no filler, and the core message is front-loaded. The parenthetical Russian translation is mild redundancy but not harmful; the main weakness is under-specification rather than wordiness, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still needs to know how the filters interact, what the default response looks like, and how 'take' controls results. The description only names the resource, leaving the agent to infer the rest from incomplete schema text.

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 coverage is 67%, which is below the high threshold, so the description should compensate for underdocumented parameters. It does not mention 'take,' 'nm_id,' or 'is_answered' at all, and the schema's own 'filter' descriptions are minimal and leave the behavior of these parameters underspecified.

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 states a clear resource ('Buyer questions') and an operation ('list'), and the parenthetical Russian phrase reinforces the domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wb_question_get or wb_questions_count, but the 'list' wording makes the basic purpose clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as wb_question_get, wb_questions_count, or wb_question_reply. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or which sibling should be preferred for a specific need.

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