wb_search_table_groups

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a subscription requirement ('Requires Jam'), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what rate limits or authentication constraints apply, or any other behavioral traits. For a search/analytics tool this is a notable gap.

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 short and the core verb is front-loaded. However, the parenthetical '(поисковая аналитика по группам)' merely repeats the meaning of the first sentence in Russian, adding redundancy without new information. It could be trimmed without losing content.

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 accepts a complex nested body object with fields like currentPeriod, orderBy, positionCluster, limit, and offset, yet the description provides no guidance on constructing it. There is no output schema, no documentation of return values, and no mention of pagination or error conditions. The Jam requirement and grouping dimensions are helpful but insufficient for reliably invoking this tool.

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 marked at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The body schema description is only a placeholder listing example fields, and the tool description does not explain how 'subject, brand, tag' map to body parameters. It adds no real semantic detail beyond the schema, but it does not actively mislead either.

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 verb and resource: 'Search analytics by group: subject, brand, tag.' It identifies specific grouping dimensions, which helps distinguish it from generic search tools like wb_search_table_details or wb_search_report. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or spell out the exact output, so it stops short of full 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 only usage-related guidance is 'Requires Jam,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as wb_search_table_details, wb_search_report, or wb_analytics_grouped_history, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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