wb_tariffs_commission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that this is a reference data lookup and warns about the large full result set (7,400 categories), which is the key behavioral trait. It does not describe authorization needs, response structure, or performance implications beyond volume, but the scale warning is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to send a subject filter.

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 extremely compact: two short sentences with the priority signal, domain, supported fulfillment schemes, and filtering guidance. Every part earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the output concept, scope, scale, and filtering behavior. It could be stronger by explicitly distinguishing from sibling tariff tools such as wb_tariffs_box, wb_tariffs_pallet, and wb_tariffs_return, but the name and content already make the distinction mostly clear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting subject: the full reference contains 7,400 categories. This helps an agent understand why filtering matters and how to use the subject parameter more effectively than the schema alone.

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 states that the tool returns WB commissions by category for FBO, FBS, and DBS fulfillment schemes, and positions it as an input for unit economics. The lack of an explicit verb is minor because 'commissions' unambiguously implies retrieval, and the tool is meaningfully distinct from sibling tariff tools like box, pallet, or return tariffs.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant ('input for unit economics') and provides concrete usage guidance: pass a subject filter because the full reference contains 7,400 categories. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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