Жалобы покупателей по товарам WB

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: 'Работает без токена' (no authentication needed) and the default negativity threshold of 1–3★. It doesn't mention rate limits or result volume, so not a 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by outputs and use case. Every sentence carries information; a slightly tighter phrasing could still improve it.

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 what is returned (repeated phrases/words, share of negatives, share of answered reviews, fresh examples). Combined with the no-token note and the argument format, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though limits (10 articles per call, result size) are left to the schema.

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 50%, and the schema itself already documents both articles and the max_stars threshold. The description adds only the default range (1–3★) for the negativity cutoff, which partially reinforces but does not extend parameter semantics; baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource (собирает негативные отзывы) plus the multi-product scope and the analytics performed. It is clear what the tool produces, though the distinction from sibling wb_reviews (single-product) is only implied rather than stated.

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 states the practical context ('найти слабые места конкурентов или своего товара и идеи для улучшения'), which gives the agent a clear scenario for use. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of the top band.

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