Мониторинг цен конкурентов WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: 'Работает без токена' (no auth token required) and it discloses the analytical output the caller receives. It does not cover rate limits or behavior for invalid articles, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the analytical detail, then the practical use case and the no-token note. No filler, though the selling-style phrasing ('удобно... ловить, кто демпингует') is slightly verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return content (current price vs history, min/max/average, changes, markers) and auth requirements, which it does. Minor gaps remain around pagination/limits and what happens with invalid or unknown articles.

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 50%: the weeks parameter and the article item type are documented in the schema, but the articles array itself has no top-level description. The description only hints at both ('нескольких товаров', 'за последние недели') without adding format, limits, or the 20-item cap, so it adds marginal value over 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it monitors Wildberries prices for multiple items at once, listing the exact analysis produced (current vs min/max/average, change over weeks, markers for minimum/drop/rise/sale). The phrase 'нескольких товаров сразу' implicitly distinguishes it from single-item siblings like wb_price_history, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Удобно регулярно проверять конкурентов и ловить, кто демпингует' describes a use case (recurring competitor monitoring, catching dumping) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no exclusions relative to wb_price_history or wb_compare. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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