Сравнение товаров WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered; the description adds the auth-relevant fact "Работает без токена" plus the result-shaping behavior of flagging leaders per metric, which is not in any structured field. It still omits error behavior for invalid articles and any rate/limit context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covers purpose, compared fields, and output; the short "Работает без токена" clause earns its place as auth context. The metric list is somewhat dense but not padded.

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 one-parameter read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description supplies the compared dimensions and the leader-marking result behavior, leaving nothing critical unstated for a correct call.

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?

Top-level coverage of the single parameter is 0%, and the description only implies plurality via "несколько товаров" — it never explains the nmId format, the 2-item minimum, or the 20-item cap. The format detail actually lives in the schema's items description, so the prose compensates for nothing.

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 precise verb ("Сравнивает") and resource ("несколько товаров Wildberries"), then enumerates exactly what is compared (цена, скидка, рейтинг, отзывы, остатки, срок доставки) and the output behavior (marks leaders per metric). This clearly separates it from single-product siblings like wb_product and wb_product_details.

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 parenthetical "например, свой и конкурентов" implies the competitive-analysis use case, which is useful context, but no sibling is named as an alternative and no exclusion is stated. An agent must infer that wb_product handles single lookups and wb_price_watch handles longitudinal tracking.

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