Set up the local Avito session

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is already covered; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: a temporary browser window is opened, results must be served before proceeding, the user may have to pass an access check (a human-in-the-loop dependency), the session is persisted locally, and the window is closed. It stops short of saying where the session is stored or how long it remains valid.

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?

A single sentence that proceeds in execution order (open, wait, save, close) with no filler, and it front-loads the browser-window action. It is efficient, though cramming four steps plus the access-check caveat into one sentence slightly reduces scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the outcome — it does (session saved locally, window closed) — and annotations cover the side-effect profile. However, for a stateful setup tool that other sibling tools presumably depend on, it omits the undocumented timeout parameter, session persistence location/expiry, and any ordering relationship with avito_search/avito_item, leaving a moderately sized gap.

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% for the single parameter timeoutSeconds, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions the timeout, its default of 120s, its 30–300s range, or what happens when it elapses. The phrase 'wait until Avito serves search results' gestures at a bounded wait but adds no actionable parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb+resource — it sets up (opens, waits, saves, closes) a local Avito session — and enumerates the concrete steps. It does not reference any sibling by name, but since no sibling competes for this setup role, an agent can still tell it apart from avito_search/avito_item. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 never states when to call this tool: not whether it must run before avito_search/avito_item, not what triggers a re-run, and not what happens if a session already exists. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'save the session locally'. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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