WB Reviews by imt_id

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: the endpoint returns a fixed ~1000-review pool, is newest-first, ignores server-side order params, and applies sort client-side. This materially affects how the agent should interpret results and is exactly the kind of disclosure that helps avoid misuse.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides only high-value caveats in a compact sequence. Every sentence earns its place: pool indexing, fixed 1000-review pool, server-side order being ignored, client-side sort, and the 'worst' alias for complaint discovery. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the remaining behavioral context an agent needs: why imt_id matters, the bounded review pool, sort semantics, and the recommended way to find complaints. Nothing essential to calling this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conceptual relationship between imt_id and nmId, clarifying that sort operates over the fixed returned pool rather than all feedbacks, and emphasizing that 'worst' reorders by lowest rating to surface complaints. These details go beyond the schema entries.

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 action and resource: 'Fetch reviews by imt_id'. It also names the source of the id ('root_id from wb_root_info') and distinguishes this review pool from nmId-based lookups, which separates it from sibling tools like wb_card and wb_root_info. The purpose is immediately clear and not tautological.

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 clear usage context: use imt_id, not nmId, because all variants share one review pool; and it explains how sort behaves given the endpoint's fixed pool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use wb_questions for questions instead', but the practical context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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