Сравнение товаров WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable context: it works without a token, saving the agent from auth setup. It also discloses the behavior of highlighting leaders per metric. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb and purpose, lists the compared fields, and states the leader-marking behavior; the second adds the auth-free trait. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the response looks like or how 'leaders' are presented. It does not. It also omits potential limitations (e.g., max 20 items) but those are in the schema. For a comparison tool, this is a noticeable gap, though annotations and the simple parameter list keep it manageable.

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 description does not explicitly describe the 'articles' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the input schema itself provides a good description for articles (Wildberries nmId), and the tool description explains that these products are compared, giving purpose to the parameter. It compensates partially but does not add format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 'compares' and the resource 'several Wildberries products', listing concrete metrics (price, discount, rating, reviews, stock, delivery time) and the unique behavior of marking leaders. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wb_product (single product) and wb_price_history (price history).

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 provides a clear usage scenario: comparing multiple products, such as one's own versus competitors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the phrase 'several products' implicitly directs single-product queries elsewhere. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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