Статус подключения к Авито Рекламе

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explicitly promises no network egress and no client secret/token in the response. It also discloses what the output will tell the caller (which variable is broken and how), which is meaningful behavioral context for a diagnostic 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states function, the second states safety, the third states usage. The final clause about avoiding repeated errors earns its place because it tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it lists the checks performed, the safety properties, and the exact error scenario that should trigger the call. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough about the returned diagnostic information to make the call useful.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema already documents that (100% coverage with an empty properties object), so parameter explanation is unnecessary. Baseline 4 applies; the description loses no information here.

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 opens with a specific diagnostic verb ('Показывает') and an exact object: server readiness for Avito Ads, covering the three environment variables, environment selection, and API address. This clearly distinguishes auth_status from every sibling tool, none of which is a configuration/health check.

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: call first when other tools report missing credentials or account-not-found. It also explains what the tool does for the user ('names the specific variable and what is wrong') and thereby tells the agent when it is the right diagnostic first step.

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