wb_tariffs_return

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the economic context but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how the optional date parameter affects results, what data is returned, or any other runtime 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 one short sentence and front-loads the priority marker and core concept. The parenthetical Russian translation is slightly redundant but does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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 is low-complexity: one optional parameter and no nested objects. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned tariffs look like or how the date parameter influences them, so completeness is only minimally adequate for selection and 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 parameter 'date' is already fully documented in the schema as 'YYYY-MM-DD', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about how the date is used or whether it is required, though the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation.

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 — reverse logistics tariffs for returns — which is distinct from sibling tariff tools like wb_tariffs_box, wb_tariffs_pallet, and wb_tariffs_commission. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'fetch,' but the tool name and context make the intended operation reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'a hidden cost at high return rates' implies a use case: assessing return-related logistics costs when return rates are high. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like wb_returns_list or wb_goods_return_report, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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