avito_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add context beyond the name: it is a read-oriented return of identity and it explicitly discloses that profile discovery is not guessed from undocumented endpoints and will be implemented later. However, it does not state what happens on an unauthicated call or whether the tool currently returns data or an error.

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 essential purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The following two sentences explain a deliberate implementation decision, which is useful context for an agent deciding whether the tool is reliable. It is slightly verbose for the point being made, but still compact and readable.

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-input tool with an output schema, the description covers the main need: it identifies the resource and warns that implementation is pending. However, the contradiction between 'Return' and 'will be implemented' leaves ambiguity about whether the tool is currently callable, and no guidance is given about what to do instead.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so parameter semantics are not at issue. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings.

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 first sentence, 'Return the authenticated Avito profile identity,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling avito_selfcheck, but the resource ('profile identity') is clear. The later implementation caveat slightly muddies current functionality but does not obscure the intended purpose.

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 given for when to use this tool versus avito_selfcheck or any alternative. The description notes that discovery 'will be implemented after observing the user's real authenticated browser session,' implying unavailability, but it never states when to call it or what conditions should route an agent elsewhere.

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