WB Seller Legal Info

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail about error handling: it raises a ToolError with a JSON message describing the error code and retryability. It also clarifies what legal-entity data is returned, giving the agent a concrete picture of the call's result.

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 purpose, then adds a crisp use-case ('who actually ships this?'), a workflow chaining hint, and a dedicated error-format note. Every sentence contributes information, and the overall length is appropriate for the behavioral detail it conveys.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers when to call, where the parameter comes from, what is returned, and how failures surface. No critical context 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 coverage is 100%: the supplier_id property already documents the type, positive constraint, and source ('Get it from wb_card's supplier_id field'). The description repeats the chaining hint but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up the registered legal entity behind a WB seller.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that it identifies who actually ships the product, using registered name, tax IDs, and legal address, rather than being a card, search, or review tool.

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: 'Chain from wb_card: its supplier_id field feeds straight into this tool.' This tells an agent when in the workflow to invoke it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for the same task, which prevents a perfect score.

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