Разбор рекламы

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds behavioral details: it clarifies the basis of calculations (attributed orders), excludes profit and redemption-based DRR, and notes statistical limitations. These are valuable context for interpreting results and avoiding misuse.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core function, and then adds essential clarifications and limitations. Every sentence carries meaning without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input constraints and metric definitions. It addresses what the tool computes and its limitations, providing enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though it could mention expected output 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?

The description implicitly covers parameter limits (max 50 campaigns, 31-day window) that align with the schema, but does not explain the meaning of campaignIds, the date format, or the relationship between start and end. The parameter names are intuitive, yet explicit semantics are lacking.

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 that the tool calculates CTR, CPC, and DRR based on attributed orders, and explicitly notes what it is not (profit or DRR by redemptions). This specificity distinguishes it from generic analytics tools and leaves little ambiguity about its purpose.

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 practical constraints (up to 50 campaigns, 31 days per call, small samples do not prove inefficiency) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like wb_sales_funnel or wb_aggregate. This leaves some inference needed to decide when this tool is the best choice.

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