WB Seller Legal Info

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing the return format (WbSellerResponse fields, foreign_codes for EAEU sellers) and error behavior (ToolError with retryable flag). This provides rich context about what the tool returns and how failures are surfaced, which is not inferred from readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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: a clear main sentence, a brief rationale, the chain instruction, and then dedicated sections for return and error formats. Each element adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description is fully complete. It covers the entire workflow: when to use it (chain from wb_card), what the returned data includes, and how errors are reported. The existing annotations and output schema cover safety and structure, leaving no significant gaps.

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 already provides a full description for supplier_id: 'WB supplier id (positive integer). Get it from wb_card's supplier_id field.' The description's chaining note essentially repeats this, adding no new semantic meaning beyond emphasizing the source. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Look up the registered legal entity behind a WB seller.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the legal entity rather than product/category/search data. The examples of distinguishing official stores from resellers further clarify the unique value.

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: 'Chain from wb_card: its supplier_id field feeds straight into this tool.' This explains when to use it (after wb_card) and what it's for (identifying the legal entity behind a seller). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like wb_root_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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