Аудит карточки WB против конкурентов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not burdened with basic safety disclosure. It adds useful behavior: returns competitor medians and concrete recommendations, and requires no token. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but the read-only annotation lowers that need.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, compared attributes, result type, and auth requirement are each covered in short clauses. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 audit tool with no output schema, it covers input, comparison scope, output (medians + recommendations), and access requirements. It does not state what happens when the competitors array is empty, but that is a minor gap given the schema default and examples.

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%, so both article and competitors are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Description states a specific action — checks a WB product card and compares it with competitors — and lists concrete comparison dimensions (photo, video, rich content, description length, price, rating, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_product or wb_compare by emphasizing competitive benchmarking and improvement recommendations.

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 intended context is clear: use this to audit a card against competitors. It also adds a practical access condition ('Работает без токена'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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