WB Root Info (imt_id)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: error format (ToolError with JSON message and retryable flag), validation/transport failure handling, and details about the response structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded and uses clear section headers (Return Format, Error Format), but it repeats the imt_id concept multiple times: 'Returns imt_id', 'All variants of one product share imt_id', and 'imt_id is the root product id shared by every variant'. This redundancy could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return format (WbRootInfoResponse fields), error format, the relationship to wb_reviews, and the purpose of imt_id. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, describing nm_id as 'nmId (positive integer). The SKU whose basket CDN card.json is fetched for imt_id resolution.' The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the action ('Fetch full card metadata from basket CDN') and the specific resource/outcome ('Returns imt_id (root_id) for review pool'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that reviews are indexed by imt_id, not nmId, and referencing wb_reviews.

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?

Clear context is provided: the description explains that reviews are indexed by imt_id rather than nmId, implying this tool should be used to resolve imt_id before querying wb_reviews. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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