История цен товара WB

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it discloses the auth requirement (works without a token) and the nature of the output (weekly granularity, summary statistics), neither of which annotations convey.

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?

A single, tightly front-loaded sentence that names the resource, granularity, returned summary, and auth context with zero filler.

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 usefully previews the return values (min/max/current/change), which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of stating the covered time window or how to interpret the change field, but for a one-parameter read-only tool it is essentially complete.

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?

Only one parameter (article), and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the nmId format and its origin in the catalog URL. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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: weekly price history for a Wildberries product, plus the summary fields it returns (min, max, current, change). The scope is clear and concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling wb_price_watch, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only retrieval framing, and 'Работает без токена' hints at a context where credentials are unavailable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to an alternative such as wb_price_watch vs this snapshot-history tool.

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