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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool modifies data. The description does not add behavioral details beyond this (e.g., side effects, error behavior). While the output schema may cover return values, the description lacks transparency on execution outcomes.

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 concise with a clear two-sentence purpose statement followed by bullet-point-like parameter explanations. No superfluous information, and the essential guidance is front-loaded.

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 generic executor nature and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers how to use the tool (via wb_search). It does not explain return values or errors, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Slightly incomplete without mentioning the mapping to wb_search results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'action' as an ID from wb_search results with an example, and 'params_json' as a JSON object matching the schema. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though more detail on params_json format could help.

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 'Execute a Wildberries API action by ID', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools wb_search (which finds actions) and wb_execute_file (likely file-based execution).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use wb_search first to obtain the action ID and parameter schema, providing clear when-to-use guidance and an implicit exclusion for using without prior search.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with downloading a file (local write). However, the description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., API quota usage, required permissions, or error handling). The minimal transparency relies entirely on 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 short and uses a bullet format for parameters, which is clear. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 downloads a file and has an output schema, the description fails to mention return values, success/failure behavior, or file format. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools (wb_search, wb_execute). The context is incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and brief descriptions (action ID, local path, JSON params) but lacks details like valid action IDs, JSON format, or constraints. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 it executes an action that downloads a file, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wb_search (search) and wb_execute (generic execution) by focusing on file download, though the distinction could be sharper.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about appropriate scenarios. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as rate limits, pagination, or what exactly is returned. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 concise, uses a clear list for parameters, and front-loads the main purpose. It is efficient with no redundant sentences.

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 presence of an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter usage. For a search tool, it provides adequate context to use correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the query parameter as a natural language description, lists possible domain values, and clarifies the limit parameter meaning. This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

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 finds available Wildberries API actions by intent. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'wb_execute' and 'wb_execute_file' by focusing on discovery rather than execution.

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 tells when to use (to find actions by intent) but does not explicitly specify when not to use or provide alternatives. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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