WB Self-check (drift canary)

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

It goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the tri-state semantics: transport/OOS issues are inconclusive, only reached-200 bodies with missing anchors are drift. It also discloses the exact endpoint dependencies and why their failure would propagate to wb_search, wb_root_info, or wb_reviews.

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 bullet-list structure is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, probed endpoints, dependent tools, failure interpretation, and invocation guidance. The most important tri-state result is frontloaded.

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 that the tool takes no parameters and annotations already cover safety, the description is fully complete. It explains what is checks, how to interpret outcomes, and when to run it; an output schema can describe the technical return structure.

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 tool has no parameters, so the empty schema already covers parameter semantics completely. The description reinforces this by showing that the canary runs with no inputs and probes everything by itself.

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 purpose: a 'structural drift canary' for WB with a tri-state result. It differentiates this diagnostic from functional WB tools by naming the endpoint families it probes and the dependent tools that would break on drift.

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: 'Run on demand before trusting a batch.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as the other marketplace selfchecks, but the intended trigger scenario is clear.

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