WB Reviews by imt_id

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description reveals important non-obvious behaviors: the fixed ~1000-review pool, that server-side order params are ignored (verified Nov 2026), and that sort is applied client-side. It also discloses that an empty pool is not an error and details error types (BadRequestError, ParserDriftError, TransportDownError). This is substantial added behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections for main description, return format, and error format. It is dense but every sentence provides useful information: the pool limitation, the sort caveat, the empty-pool behavior, and error handling. It stays within reasonable length and is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to exhaustively list return fields, but it still summarizes the key fields and covers critical edge cases (empty pool not an error). It also explains error semantics and the source of the required id. For a tool with these annotations and schema richness, the description is fully complete for reliable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'why' behind sort behavior: the endpoint ignores server-side order params, making the client-side reordering meaningful. It also reinforces the imt_id vs nmId distinction for the required parameter. This deepens understanding beyond the schema descriptions, warranting a 4.

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 opens with a clear imperative 'Fetch reviews by imt_id', specifying the resource (reviews), the identifier (imt_id), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'All product variants share one review pool, indexed by imt_id NOT nmId.' This disambiguates from wb_card and wb_root_info that use nmId, giving strong purpose clarity with a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it tells users to obtain imt_id from wb_root_info, warns against using nmId, and explains the 'worst' sort for surfacing complaints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., wb_questions) or state when-not-to-use conditions, stopping short of full exclusionary guidance. The prerequisite and sort usage are clear, so it earns a 4.

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