Кабинет продавца WB: цены и скидки

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the crucial authentication requirement: WB_API_TOKEN with 'Цены и скидки' permission, which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not detail pagination or error behavior, but the added token context is valuable, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the token requirement. Every sentence serves a distinct function with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with pagination parameters and no output schema. The description states the data type and authentication need, but does not mention that results are paginated via limit/offset or what specific fields (e.g., price, discount) are returned. Given the presence of annotations and the simple nature of the tool, the description is adequate but leaves the agent to infer response structure.

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 0%, and the description must compensate for the two parameters (limit, offset). It does not mention either parameter or explain how pagination works. The phrase 'по артикулам' ('by articles') could mislead an agent into expecting an article filter, which is not in the schema. This is a significant omission.

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 the resource as the seller's current prices and discounts per article, and the title reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like wb_price_history (historical data) and wb_seller_stocks (stocks) by focusing on current price/discount information. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on a noun phrase, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 usage for retrieving current prices and discounts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_price_history or wb_seller_sales. The token requirement is a necessary prerequisite, but not a usage condition. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative references, so it only achieves implied usage.

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