Кабинет продавца WB: данные продавца

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the token-validation framing, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose anything about the returned payload beyond name/ID since no output schema exists.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and then the practical use. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 trivial zero-parameter, read-only identity lookup with no output schema, stating what is returned (name and ID) and the token-check use case is sufficient. Additional detail on response shape would be minor.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is required beyond the configured token.

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 clearly what the tool returns (seller name and ID) tied to the token, which is a specific resource. It implies it is the seller-identity lookup, distinguishing it from siblings like wb_seller_orders or wb_seller_sales, though it doesn't call out an alternative by name.

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?

Explicitly gives a use case — verify that the WB_API_TOKEN works — which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at a sibling alternative, but the context is concrete.

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