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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that no bargain/risk verdict is produced and that the comparison is refreshed live, which sets correct output expectations — a genuinely useful addition 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 with the capability front-loaded and the caveat second. The trailing 'before prices' is slightly compressed prose but still earns its place by sequencing attributes ahead of price.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the scope limit, the non-goal (no scoring), and the attributes compared (model, memory, condition, accessories, defects), which implicitly describes the returned structure. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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%, so the description carries the burden. 'Up to five exact listings' partly compensates: it identifies the input as listing URLs (not search queries) and matches the maxItems=5 bound. It never states that at least one URL is required, nor the URL form expected.

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 — refresh/compare exact listings side by side — with the hard limit of five that separates it from get_listing (single listing) and search_listings (discovery). Siblings are not named explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Compare ... before prices' implies the situation (deciding between known listings) and 'No automatic bargain/risk score' rules out expecting a verdict. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to get_listing for a single item, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: no phone reveal or login-gated data, no side effects such as messaging or purchase, and that a visible listing may already be sold (staleness caveat).

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 short sentences with the capability front-loaded, boundaries second, and the staleness caveat last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by naming the fields returned and the content deliberately excluded. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly and to interpret what it will and won't get back.

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% and the single required parameter is only identified as 'url'. The description implies it must be an Avito listing URL but gives no format, canonicalization, or error behavior for invalid/shortened links, so it only partially compensates for the bare schema.

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 plus resource ('Read a full Avito listing URL') and enumerates exactly what is returned: price, seller-declared condition, model/parameters, description, seller rating/type, and quoted defect/mining/repair/testing mentions. This clearly separates it from search_listings and compare_listings, which operate over sets rather than a single fetched listing.

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 exclusions ('No phone reveal, login, messaging or purchase') tell the agent what this tool cannot accomplish, which is useful negative guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_listings or compare_listings, nor what input conditions are required (e.g. a canonical listing URL).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot convey: no network contact with Avito and no exposure of cookies, tokens, or account data. That directly addresses an agent's privacy/side-effect concerns, going beyond the safety hints.

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 sentences, no filler. The list of returned fields comes first and the safety constraint second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it enumerates the four fields adequately. It could be slightly richer (e.g., what 'access cooldown' means numerically), but an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related gaps exist.

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 names the concrete payload of the tool — default city, saved browser session, request count, access cooldown — so an agent knows exactly what a call returns. It implicitly separates itself from the remote-query siblings by labeling this 'Local status', though it never explicitly references them.

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 second sentence implies a safe, offline context and rules out any Avito-side effects, which hints at when this is appropriate (checking local state before a real request). But it never states when to call it versus get_listing/search_listings, nor any precondition such as 'call this first to check cooldown'.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior the agent could not infer: exactly one site page per call (up to 50 listings), the returned fields (asking prices, links, seller ratings, snippet text, lexical hardware signals), and the crucial caveat that total_found is counted BEFORE local filters. It also flags that price/sort/seller filters are validated against the site's own controls, which explains silent filter degradation.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: category and default city come first, return shape and caveats follow. A few lines are compressed into run-ons ('Includes new/used/unknown') but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, 9 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the return-value and filter-caveat information that would otherwise be missing. Remaining gaps are query-syntax expectations, pagination limits beyond `page`, and failure/empty-result behavior for an open-world scraper.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for most: city default, price window, sort, seller filter, and especially local_only (filters by listing URL city) and total_found semantics that the schema never explains. It does not clarify `page` behavior or the interplay between `limit` and the stated 'up to 50 listings' cap.

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 ('Search Avito's computer-goods category') plus the default scope (Екатеринбург) and category boundary, which implicitly separates it from search_used_parts. It also names the follow-up sibling get_listing, so an agent can place the tool in the workflow without opening a sibling schema.

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?

Gives an explicit handoff rule ('Use get_listing to confirm condition and health claims') and explains that local_only/total_found interact in a non-obvious way. It never states when to prefer search_used_parts or compare_listings, so the alternative selection is left to inference.

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

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

Beyond the annotations it explains the inspection budget (one search plus up to 5 card reads, default 3), the filter semantics (only structured Б/у passes, new/unknown excluded and counted, broken/repair retained with text signals), and result instability across calls. readOnlyHint/destructiveHint are consistent with this; 'results can shift between calls' sits in mild tension with idempotentHint but does not contradict it since no environment state is modified.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the cost model, the filter rule, and the scope limits. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

The core mechanics of a 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool are covered, but the definition is silent on the majority of filter parameters and on what a result record contains beyond condition text. An agent can call it correctly on query/inspect_limit/pagination but will underuse the filtering surface.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load; it does explain the non-obvious dual pagination (offset within a page, then page) and inspect_limit's default/max. It says nothing about city, sort, price_min/price_max, local_only, or seller_type, leaving most filtering parameters to be guessed from the schema alone.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Find used PC parts') plus the distinguishing mechanism ('checking the actual condition in full listing cards'), which separates it from a plain listing search. It never names the sibling search_listings explicitly, so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives real usage boundaries — 'bounded scan of ONE page, not exhaustive or globally cheapest' and continuation instructions. However, those are pagination rules rather than a when-to-use-this-vs-search_listings/get_listing/compare_listings rationale, so an agent still has to infer tool selection.

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