Кабинет продавца WB: остатки

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new operational context beyond them: the required WB_API_TOKEN with the 'Statistics' category and a ~30-minute data refresh cadence. It does not state pagination or response size limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the return contents, then use case, then auth and freshness caveats. Semicolon-separated clauses are dense but each carries information; nothing is padding, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned, the auth requirement, and data freshness. Missing only minor operational details like pagination or result caps, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a full description, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates that low_threshold is the cutoff for the 'running out' lists, adding little beyond what the schema says.

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 names a specific resource (own goods' stock at WB FBO warehouses) and enumerates exactly what it returns per SKU: totals, per-warehouse breakdown, in-transit both directions, plus out-of-stock and running-out lists. This clearly separates it from siblings like wb_seller_orders, wb_seller_sales, and wb_seller_prices.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: 'use this to understand what it's time to supply.' That is clear context for when to reach for the tool, but it stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., how it differs from wb_seller_sales for demand analysis).

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