wb_stats_sales

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious trait: the tool spots goods that stopped selling, which goes beyond a generic 'sales stats' description. It does not, however, clarify the return format, whether it is read-only, or how the period is interpreted.

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 scannable, with no wasted length. The parenthetical '(продажи)' is somewhat redundant, and the semicolon structure is slightly awkward, but overall it remains concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the basic call is simple and the description conveys the sales-period purpose and the dead-stock detection behavior. It is not fully self-sufficient because it omits the exact return shape and does not precisely define how 'period' maps to the single date_from parameter.

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 only parameter, date_from, already has schema coverage via its RFC3339 format description, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for a period' adds a mild semantic hint that date_from starts the period, but it does not explain period length or whether date_from is an exact date versus a range start.

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 identifies the resource ('sales') and the period scope, and adds a distinguishing behavior ('spots goods that stopped selling'). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the intent is still clear and it is distinguishable from wb_stats_orders and wb_stats_stocks by name and function.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: for sales over a period and for detecting goods that stopped selling. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the many overlapping analytics/stats siblings, nor does it give any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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