Воронка продаж

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about data delays and recalculations, which is beneficial. However, it references non-existent parameters (selectedPeriod, pastPeriod) that conflict with the actual schema, muddying the behavioral picture without directly contradicting the annotations.

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 brief, but it contains misleading information about parameters. Conciseness is not valuable if the content is inaccurate; the structure is flat with no prioritization of key details.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits pagination details, filtering semantics, and response expectations. The erroneous parameter reference further undermines completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain start, end, limit, offset, nmIds, or subjectIds. Instead, it mentions parameters that don't exist in the schema, providing no meaningful semantics for the actual 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 lists concrete data types (transitions, carts, orders, redemptions) for specified products, making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like wb_aggregate, but the focus on funnel metrics is distinctive. The mention of 'selectedPeriod' and 'pastPeriod' introduces confusion, but the core intent remains understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_aggregate or wb_read. The description lacks any conditional context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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