get_status

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.