wb_search_table_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only adds a subscription requirement and the high-level data returned. It does not mention output shape, pagination, date constraints, or failure/authorization behavior beyond the Jam requirement.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core resource and data, then adds the prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a nested body object, so the description is the only source of context beyond the skeleton body template. It does not explain the response format, required date ranges, or how the search analytics are grouped, leaving agents under-informed for a correct 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 single body parameter already has a schema description showing expected fields like currentPeriod, orderBy, positionCluster, limit, and offset, so the schema carries most of the burden (coverage 100%). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('search analytics per product') and the metrics it returns ('positions and conversions by query'), so an agent can infer what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as wb_search_table_groups or wb_search_report, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a clear use context (per-product search analytics) and a prerequisite ('Requires Jam'), which implies when it can be used. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related search/analytics siblings, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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