Кабинет продавца WB: цены и скидки

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the token category required, and the fact that prices are shown without SPP or WB promotions (i.e., seller-set prices only), which is a non-obvious behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention pagination defaults, rate limits, or response structure, leaving some behavioral aspects to the schema. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 reflects moderate added value beyond structured fields.

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 compact sentences: the first specifies the core purpose and fields, the second distinguishes from siblings, and a final sentence gives the token requirement. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 provides the required token category, clarifies the pricing scope (without SPP and WB promotions), and points to appropriate alternatives. It is almost complete; the only minor gap is lack of pagination guidance, which is not strictly necessary since limit and offset are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit and offset with defaults and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter details (e.g., maximum limits or pagination behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 verb+resource: it returns the current prices of the seller's own goods in the seller's cabinet, and lists exactly which fields are returned (WB article, seller article, price before discount, seller discount %, price after discount). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings wb_product and wb_price_watch by noting that those show the storefront price and competitor prices, which this tool does not.

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 states exactly when to use this tool (for the seller's own set prices without SPP and WB promotions) and names two alternatives for different use cases: wb_product and wb_price_watch for storefront and competitor prices. It also gives the authentication prerequisite (WB_API_TOKEN with category 'Цены и скидки').

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