Аудит карточки WB против конкурентов

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context – and it does: it discloses that the tool returns competitor medians plus concrete recommendations, and that it needs no token. It does not mention rate limits or how many competitor cards drive network load, but the added auth and return-shape context is genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a dense but purposeful metric list, closing with the return value and the no-token note. Every clause carries information; the long enumeration is the only reason it is not a 5.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it compares, what it returns (medians + recommendations), and the auth requirement. Only the absence of guidance on competitor-count tradeoffs or return format keeps it from full marks.

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%: both 'article' and 'competitors' are documented in the schema, including the nmId format hint and the 3–10 recommendation. The description adds no format, bounds, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (audits a Wildberries product card) and enumerates exactly which dimensions are compared: photo, video, rich content, description length, characteristics, price, rating, reviews, negativity share, seller answers, delivery speed. This is far more concrete than a generic 'audit' tool, though it never names the closest siblings (wb_compare, wb_product_details) to draw the line explicitly.

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 one real usage signal is 'Работает без токена', which tells the agent no auth setup is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use vs wb_compare or wb_product, and no statement of when this audit is inappropriate (e.g. for a seller's own card already covered elsewhere). Usage is only implied by the comparison framing.

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