Check Avito MCP health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the session is local and protected, and live=true triggers an actual outbound request through the saved session, which matters for an open-world tool.

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 tight sentences with the core check front-loaded and the optional flag second. No filler.

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-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it verifies and the side effect of live mode. It could say more about what the check reports (session present/expired), but nothing essential is missing.

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 0% and the single property has no description, so the description must carry the meaning. It does explain that live=true sends one request through the saved session, while the default false is left implicit but reasonably inferable from 'also'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a protected local browser session exists') and the optional live probe. This clearly separates it from avito_setup_session, which establishes rather than verifies the session.

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?

Explains the conditional use of live=true ('also send one lightweight request'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over avito_setup_session or what to do if the check fails, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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