Avito Search

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

Builds on read-only/idempotent annotations by detailing the return envelope (e.g., 'tier_used', 'total_count') and item fields, notably 'price_rub (None when the ad has no price — never 0)' to prevent misinterpretation. The error format section discloses specific failure modes (BadRequestError, TransportDownError with captcha/proxy guidance, ParserDriftError), which is valuable operational context.

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 description is well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by clearly labeled Return Format and Error Format sections, making it scannable. It is slightly verbose due to the return format detail, but each section carries meaningful information, and there is no fluff.

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 a detailed schema, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description still adds critical context about error handling and data semantics (e.g., price None vs 0). It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the page parameter, but the schema already constrains that, so overall the tool is well-specified.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions, including defaults and examples. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail for parameters beyond what is in the schema, so it does not go beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Search Avito listings via the internal js/items API,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like avito_card and avito_seller, and from other marketplace search tools.

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 implies use for searching Avito listings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like avito_card for details or avito_seller for seller info. There is no exclusion or reference to sibling tools, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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