wb_search_texts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral information: a hard cap of 30 results and the 'without Jam' condition. However, 'Jam' is unexplained, and the description does not mention output format, pagination, or error behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. The key facts are front-loaded. The only slight issue is that 'without Jam' is cryptic and may not earn its place without explanation.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe the response structure, date handling, limits on nm_ids, or what 'without Jam' actually means operationally. An agent would likely need additional external knowledge to call this tool correctly.

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 schema's lack of detail. It vaguely references 'specific goods' (matching nm_ids) and 'max 30' (matching limit), but it completely omits date_from and date_to, which are required parameters. It does not explain expected value formats for any parameter.

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 that the tool returns top search queries for specific goods, and the tool name plus 'поисковые фразы' clarify it deals with search phrase texts. It does not explicitly say 'returns' or detail output, but it is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like wb_search_table_details or wb_search_report.

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 implies usage context: when you need top search queries for specific goods, bounded by a 30-query limit. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related search-analytics siblings, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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