История цен товара WB

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds useful context by stating that no token is required and by explaining the weekly scope and summary fields. It does not discuss rate limits or exact fetching behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core function and output fields, and the second concisely states the no-token requirement. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 one fully documented parameter, read-only/open-world annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return information (weekly history plus min/max/current/change) and authentication context. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though the exact representation of the 'graph' is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'article' parameter is fully documented with the nmId format and a catalog-link example. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('price history of a Wildberries product') and the output ('summary: min, max, current, change'), which distinguishes it from product-detail, review, and seller tools. It lacks a finite verb and does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of the strongest possible differentiation.

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 phrase 'Работает без токена' (works without a token) gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the 'price history + summary' wording implies the natural use case. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so routing guidance is somewhat implicit.

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