wb_get_sales

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so read-only status is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: a rate limit of 1 req/min, the JSON success/error envelope shape, and the row-level fields returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for callers.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose and API context, then Args and Returns are clearly sectioned. There is no filler; each line contributes useful information for invoking the tool.

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 (2 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, parameter formats, flag behavior, rate limiting, and return envelope. No critical gap is evident.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It defines date_from with RFC3339/MSK format and concrete examples, and explains flag values 0 and 1 with their exact behavioral distinction. This is essential and well done.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get Wildberries sales and returns since a date.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_get_new_orders or wb_get_stocks, even without comparing schemas. The purpose is immediately identifiable.

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 implies usage context — fetching sales and returns relative to a date — and explains the flag semantics for incremental vs dated retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as wb_get_new_orders or wb_get_prices, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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