Кабинет продавца WB: отзывы

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the authentication requirement and its exact scope (WB_API_TOKEN with 'Reviews and questions') plus the default result filtering, which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the resource and scope first, then the credential requirement. Nothing redundant.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema the description is adequate on identity and auth, but it omits pagination semantics (skip/take) and any hint about result shape or limits (take max 5000), which matter 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 coverage is only 33% — only 'answered' is documented in the schema. The description supplements this by restating the default (unanswered) and explaining that returned ids are for replying, but 'skip' and 'take' (pagination) remain unexplained in both places, so compensation is partial.

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 verb+resource: customer reviews on the seller's products, with a default filter (unanswered) and the fact that each item carries an id for replying. This clearly separates it from a generic review tool, though it never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. wb_reviews) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied — the default 'unanswered' behaviour and the 'id for reply' hint at the workflow with wb_seller_answer_feedback, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like wb_reviews.

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