WB Root Info (imt_id)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the data source (basket CDN), the variant-sharing semantic, the critical warning that reviews are indexed by imt_id rather than nmId, and a specific error format with retryability info. No contradictions with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: main action, return value, key semantic, and error behavior. The structure is front-loaded and the error format section is clearly separated with a heading. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the critical indexing caveat, and error handling; nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 schema already fully documents nm_id. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full card metadata from basket CDN'), then names the key output ('imt_id (root_id) for review pool'). The statement 'Reviews indexed by imt_id, NOT by nmId' clearly differentiates this from review-indexing tools like wb_reviews.

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 context: all variants share imt_id and reviews are indexed by imt_id, implying an agent should use this tool when it needs the imt_id before querying reviews. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the guidance is strong enough.

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