WB Product Cards

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: prices are returned in rubles, the selected fields are explicit, and the tool supports at most 100 SKUs. It does not contradict the annotations, and the additional details help set expectations without restating annotation flags.

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 only two sentences with no filler or redundant restatement of schema/annotation fields. The primary action and return summary are front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 rich annotations, complete input schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the remaining operational facts needed to call the tool correctly: the API source, returned fields, currency, and batch limit. No critical information is missing for a read-only batch product-card lookup.

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 100% parameter documentation, including the default dest value, region examples, and the 1..100 nmIds constraint. The description reinforces the 100-SKU limit and mentions ruble prices, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('product card data from WB v4 API'), then enumerates the returned fields such as prices, brand, supplier, and ratings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_search or wb_reviews by focusing on batch card lookups by nmIds.

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 it is used when you need product card data for specific up-to-100 SKUs, and the 100-SKU cap signals batching. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over wb_search, wb_reviews, or other WB siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites like how to obtain nmIds.

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