wb_search_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the Jam requirement, a rate limit, and the kind of data returned (views, clicks, search positions). It does not describe whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure is, how date ranges behave, or how errors/limits are surfaced, so transparency is only partial.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in the most operational facts: required Jam, rate limit, and report contents. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a 4-parameter report tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It provides purpose and limits, but it omits parameter semantics, date format expectations, response shape, and how this report relates to the many search/analytics siblings. The agent is not equipped to call it correctly with confidence.

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% (nm_ids is labeled simply as 'filter'), and the description does not compensate. It gives no details about date_from/date_to format, limit semantics beyond a default, or the meaning of nm_ids filtering in the context of search reports. The agent must infer or guess parameter usage.

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 this as a search query report and lists its core output dimensions (views, clicks, search positions), which distinguishes it from other search-related siblings like wb_search_table_details or wb_search_texts. However, it is phrased as a label rather than an explicit verb+resource action, and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 includes practical usage constraints: it requires Jam and has a 3 req/min rate limit. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_search_table_details, wb_search_product_orders, or wb_nm_report, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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