WB Buyer Questions by imt_id

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: questions are pooled across variants by imt_id, an nmId returns an empty pool without an error, and seller answers are often the only public statement of a product fact. This helps the agent interpret empty results and choose the correct key.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and later paragraphs earn their place by explaining purpose, keying, and a common failure mode. A few illustrative examples make the description slightly longer than strictly necessary but not 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?

The tool has a rich output schema, full parameter coverage, and safety annotations, so the description only needs to add selection context and keying behavior. It covers the prerequisite (wb_root_info), the wrong-key failure mode, and the distinction from reviews, making it complete for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by emphasizing that imt_id is the root id from wb_root_info and that a wrong key produces an empty pool rather than an error. This reinforces the correct use of the imt_id parameter beyond the schema text.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: "Fetch buyer questions and seller answers by imt_id." It also distinguishes the tool from wb_reviews by explaining that reviews describe the ownership experience while questions clarify what the product actually is, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit guidance: resolve imt_id via wb_root_info first, do not pass an nmId, and expect an empty pool if you do. It also positions the tool against wb_reviews, clarifying when questions are more useful than reviews.

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