WB Buyer Questions by imt_id

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds behavior those annotations cannot express: an nmId silently yields an empty pool rather than an error, and an empty pool is a legitimate state meaning nobody has asked yet. That is exactly the kind of silent-failure warning an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination walk behavior beyond the schema's page size note, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 lookup key and the sibling differentiation, then the practical pitfall, then the schema pointer — a sensible order. Some of the middle prose (the reviews-vs-questions analogy) is more narration than needed, but it does real work for sibling selection, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: correct id type, prerequisite tool, pagination caps, filtering intent, and the meaning of an empty result. Nothing required 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the rationale behind the id choice: every colour and size variant shares one question pool, so variant-level ids fail. It also motivates answered_only implicitly through the note that unresolved questions carry no product information. Marginal additions only, but genuine ones.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Fetch buyer questions and seller answers by imt_id") and immediately scopes the key to root_id from wb_root_info. It explicitly contrasts itself with the nearest sibling ("Reviews describe the experience of owning the product; questions clarify what it actually is"), so an agent can pick between wb_questions and wb_reviews without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers via real example questions ("does it fit a 60cm opening", "is the cable included"), names the alternative (wb_reviews) and the condition that separates them. It also states the prerequisite workflow — resolve the root id via wb_root_info first — and the failure mode to avoid (passing an nmId returns an empty pool with no error).

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