Кабинет продавца WB: данные продавца

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds context about the token verification purpose but does not disclose potential error cases, output format details, or what happens if the token is invalid. This adds some value but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the primary purpose (returning seller name and ID) before the secondary purpose (token verification). No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (name and ID) and why to use it (token check). It could specify the exact output format or error behavior, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description isn't required to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any. Baseline 4 applies.

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 states the tool returns the seller's name and ID for the token, which is a specific verb+resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by indicating it's for verifying the token, not for retrieving sales, stocks, or other specific data.

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 implies a use case (checking that the WB_API_TOKEN works) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks clear when/when-not guidance, though the purpose is fairly self-evident.

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