Отзывы о товаре WB

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuine extra context beyond them: 'works without a token', meaning no authentication is required. It does not disclose pagination or how the rating distribution is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned content, then the use case and the auth note. No filler; every clause 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?

With 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each review contains (text, pros, cons, seller reply) and the token-free access, which compensates for the missing return schema. Only pagination/response-shape detail is absent.

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%, so article, limit and max_stars are fully documented in the schema itself. The description describes the content of returned reviews but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific resource (rating distribution and latest customer reviews for a WB product) with the fields returned (text, pros, cons, seller reply). Clear enough to distinguish it from the seller-side sibling tools, but it never explicitly differentiates from wb_review_insights.

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?

'Useful to understand what a product or competitor is praised or criticized for' gives a clear use case, so usage is implied rather than asserted. It names no alternative tool and no when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing against wb_review_insights and wb_seller_feedbacks to inference.

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