Товар Wildberries по артикулу

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: no token/auth required, support for one or many articles in a single call, and the filtering rule that out-of-sale products are omitted from the response – a non-obvious output behavior.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The returned-field list is front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral constraints (no token, out-of-stock excluded). Every clause carries information.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and covering auth, batching, and missing-item behavior. Only minor gaps remain, e.g. error behavior for invalid or unknown articles and any rate limits.

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 parameter is fully documented there (nmId format, valid positive integer, source link, max 50). The description only restates 'по артикулу' and adds no format, batching, or range detail beyond the schema, so the 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 resource (WB product by nmId) and enumerates exactly what is returned – price, discount, rating, review count, seller, stocks, delivery time. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling wb_product_details, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 only implied: listing the returned fields suggests when the tool is useful, and 'Работает без токена' signals it is usable in a no-auth context. There is no explicit when-not or naming of alternatives such as wb_product_details or wb_price_history, despite many overlapping siblings.

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