Описание и характеристики товара WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'Только чтение' is redundant with those annotations, though 'works without a token' adds genuine auth context. It does not describe response shape or limits, so it adds only modest value beyond structured fields.

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?

Dense but well-organized: returned fields are front-loaded, then usage, then sibling routing and safety note. Every clause earns its place, though the safety clause is partly redundant with annotations.

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 enumerates the returned card fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. It stops short of describing nesting/format of characteristics, but is largely complete for a single-param read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'article' parameter is well documented in the schema (nmId, derived from the catalog URL). The description adds no parameter syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; the mention of 'артикул продавца' refers to a returned card field, not the input, and is not confusing in context.

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 (the textual content of a Wildberries product card) and enumerates exactly what it returns: name, item/category, seller article, full description, characteristics and composition. It also explicitly demarcates itself from siblings by naming where price/rating/stock and reviews live.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('study how the seller describes the product, or compare descriptions') and routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: wb_product for price/rating/stock and wb_reviews for reviews. Nothing is left to inference.

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