wb_token_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'No WB requests', revealing that the tool performs no external API call and is likely a local/configuration-based lookup. It also discloses the kind of information returned (scopes, expiry, read-only/sandbox). It does not mention failure modes or how the token is resolved, but for a simple info tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the key behavioral caveat ('No WB requests') placed prominently. The parenthetical Russian translation repeats 'token info' and adds limited value, but it does not significantly hurt clarity or conciseness.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: what it acts on (a shop's token), what it returns (scopes, expiry, read-only/sandbox), and its local/non-API nature. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the output categories. It could be slightly richer on what 'read-only/sandbox' precisely means or how the shop is selected, but overall it is sufficient 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead of parameters. No further parameter guidance is needed.

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 identifies the tool as providing token information for a shop, with explicit output categories: scopes, expiry, read-only/sandbox. It lacks a strong verb like 'gets' or 'returns', but the meaning is unmistakable and it is distinct from all the operational WB tools in the sibling list. The 'No WB requests' qualifier further separates it from sibling tools that perform remote API calls.

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: use this tool to inspect token properties such as scopes, expiry, and sandbox status. 'No WB requests' communicates what the tool does not do, implicitly telling the agent not to use it for operations that require Wildberries API calls. It does not name explicit alternatives, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is acceptable.

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