WB Catalog Search

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

It discloses concrete behavior beyond the safety annotations: the exact endpoint used, that the raw results are just product IDs, that there is no PoW protection, that rate limits are high, and that results are enriched through wb_card. This gives the agent a realistic mental model of the call before invoking it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by high-value endpoint/behavior details. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with a full output schema and complete parameter docs, this description covers the essential missing context: endpoint identity, response shape before enrichment, and rate-limit behavior. Nothing needed for a correct call is omitted.

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 all three parameters already carry their own documentation. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the query is a text query, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource ('Search WB catalog by text query'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. The mention of the dedicated search endpoint and the subsequent wb_card enrichment clearly differentiates it from catalog-browsing and card-only sibling tools.

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 useful context (lightweight endpoint, very high rate limit, returns IDs then enriches) that implies when it would be a convenient search tool, but it never explicitly states when to prefer wb_search over nearby alternatives such as wb_category_products or wb_card. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than spelled out.

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