WB Catalog Search

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by explaining that zero matches yields a WbNoResultsResponse with status "no_results" and is NOT an error, that an unknown total stays null, and that a failed read never degrades into no_results. These are non-obvious semantics an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with operational caveats following in short, scannable lines and a pointer to the guide for detail. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ("warned legacy IDs/card fallback") costs a bit of clarity but nothing is padded.

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, return values need not be enumerated, and the description still flags the key result-status nuance. The opaque "warned legacy IDs/card fallback" phrase relies on the guide reference for resolution, leaving a small gap for an agent that cannot fetch it.

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 query, dest, and page are already fully documented in the schema, including the dest default and page range. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reiterating text-query intent, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb and resource ("Search WB catalog by text query") plus the underlying data source (search.wb.ru v9). It implicitly distinguishes itself from wb_card by noting the "legacy IDs/card fallback," but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like wb_category_products or ozon_search.

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 implied by "by text query" and the fallback note explains an edge path, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over wb_category_products (browse-by-category) or the card tools. The WB_TRANSPORT=dom note gives a conditional behavior but not selection guidance.

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