WB Product Cards

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them with genuinely useful semantics: price_rub is None rather than 0 when unsellable, and an unknown SKU is not an error but simply omitted from items. Those are exactly the edge cases an agent would otherwise mishandle; only return formatting/pagination is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by return fields, then edge-case guarantees, then a pointer to the guide resource. Efficient overall, with minor redundancy where 'up to 100 SKUs' restates the schema's maxItems and the SKU-limit idea appears twice.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers the remaining ambiguity — batching limit, price nullability, and missing-SKU behavior — and defers the full field list to a named resource. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% — both nm_ids and dest carry their own descriptions including the default region and examples. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or partial-failure behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch product card data from WB v4 API, keyed by nm_ids. The 'up to 100 SKUs' batching scope makes it clearly a lookup-by-identifier tool rather than a discovery tool, which implicitly separates it from siblings like wb_search or wb_category_products, though none are named.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it with 1..100 nmIds to get card details for known SKUs. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over wb_search (keyword discovery) or wb_category_products, and no prerequisites or rate-limit guidance are given.

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