Кабинет продавца WB: отзывы

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results default to unanswered feedback, responses include IDs for replying, and a specific token/permission is required. Nothing in the description contradicts the readOnlyHint or openWorldHint annotations.

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?

One compact sentence conveys the resource, default behavior, output hint (IDs for answers), and authentication requirement. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with optional parameters, the description supplies the key invocation context: auth token, default filter, and the purpose of returned IDs. Since there is no output schema, the exact return shape and pagination details are only lightly covered, but the description is adequate for basic correct use.

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 only 33%: only 'answered' has a schema description, while skip and take are undocumented. The description only reinforces the default unanswered behavior and does not explain pagination semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 a listing tool for buyer feedback on the seller's products, including the default unanswered filter and the presence of IDs for replying. It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like wb_reviews or wb_seller_answer_feedback, so differentiation is mostly inferred.

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 provides clear usage context: fetch seller feedback, defaulting to unanswered items, with IDs meant for later answers, and requiring WB_API_TOKEN with the relevant permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as directing answering to wb_seller_answer_feedback.

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