Отзывы о товаре WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable access context by stating 'Работает без токена' (works without a token). This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent understand authentication requirements, though it does not detail rate limits or pagination.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core deliverable, and the second adds usage value and the no-token fact, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return content, and it does so by naming the rating distribution, review text, pros, cons, and seller response. It also communicates the no-token requirement. It could mention sorting or exact response shape, but the provided details are sufficient for basic selection and 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 100%, so all three parameters (article, limit, max_stars) already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond mentioning review text and ratings, which matches the schema's existing documentation. 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a distribution of ratings plus the latest customer reviews for a Wildberries product, including text, pros, cons, and seller responses. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_product, wb_price_history, and wb_seller_feedbacks.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is useful for understanding what customers praise or criticize about a product or competitor. It also adds the practical note that it works without a token, which helps an agent choose it when authentication is unavailable, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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