Кабинет продавца WB: остатки

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

The description adds the token requirement and specifies the data categories (in transit to/from customer, ended/ending), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing a necessary access precondition. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not describe rate limits or output size, so the added behavioral context is moderate.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then states the token requirement. It is efficient with no filler, earning a high but not perfect score because it could be broken into clearer parts.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview of the returned data but omits structural details like pagination or the exact response format. The token requirement and data categories are covered, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to predict the tool's behavior reliably.

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 single parameter low_threshold is fully documented in the schema with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional semantic value. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter.

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 uses a specific resource (seller's balances) and details the data scope (by SKU, warehouse, in transit, ended/ending), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wb_seller_sales or wb_seller_orders. The high level of specificity makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives; it only states a prerequisite (WB_API_TOKEN). Since the sibling tools cover sales, orders, feedback, etc., the agent is left to infer the appropriate context without explicit direction.

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