Жалобы покупателей по товарам WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it works without a token, defaults to 1-3 star reviews, and specifies what it highlights (recurring phrases, negativity share, response share, fresh examples). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches transparency beyond the structured hints.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and outputs. It avoids redundancy and provides relevant details (token requirement, default star range) without excessive length. It earns its place.

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?

The description covers the output behavior (highlights complaints, shares, examples) and the operational prerequisite (no token needed). With no output schema, it adequately explains what the agent can expect. Minor gaps like pagination or rate limits are not mentioned, but given the simplicity and the schema's maxItems=10, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, but both parameters (articles and max_stars) have clear descriptions in the schema itself. The description only mentions the default star rating ('по умолчанию 1–3★'), which is already in the schema (default: 3). It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: collecting negative reviews (1-3 stars by default) across multiple Wildberries products, and lists concrete outputs (frequent complaints, negativity share, response share, fresh examples). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing multi-product aggregation and complaint analysis, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is useful for finding weaknesses of competitors or one's own product and for improvement ideas, giving a clear 'when to use'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like wb_reviews, so it lacks explicit exclusions, though the context is strong.

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