Параметры операции

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description additionally discloses that the tool provides authoritative schema details (including source and date) and warns against fabricating parameters, adding useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the exact deliverable, the second gives actionable usage guidance. 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 one-parameter, read-only metadata tool, the description covers what is returned (path/query/body, constraints, source, date) and when to call it. It doesn't detail error cases, but annotations and the tool's simple nature keep that risk low.

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 only parameter, operationId, has 0% schema description coverage. The description and title imply that operationId identifies the operation whose schema is returned, but neither explicitly defines valid values or format. This adds some inferable meaning but leaves a gap.

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 states a specific deliverable: 'exact schema of path/query/body, constraints, source and date'. This clearly identifies the tool as an operation-schema metadata lookup and is distinguishable from siblings like wb_status or wb_read, which perform other functions.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Read before the first call of the operation', and instructs the agent not to invent parameters. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the meta-tool purpose makes the when-to-use context reasonably clear.

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