Avito Seller Profile

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: specific error conditions (empty input, 404, transport blocks, parser drift) and the return envelope structure. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving an agent clarity on failure modes and output shape.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections for purpose, return format, and error format. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff. It is slightly longer than the bare minimum but justified by the niche context and error details, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the data content (rating, review count, active listings), the return envelope, and all error cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail, and the description still adds contextual clarity about why this data matters.

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 single parameter seller_id_or_url is already fully documented in the input schema with 'Seller id or profile URL from a card/search hit' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it hits the baseline of 3 for adequate 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 clearly states 'Fetch an Avito seller profile' and explains what the profile contains (rating, review count, active-listing count). It distinguishes this from per-item review tools by noting that classifieds have no per-item review pool, making the seller profile the definitive reputation signal. This separates it from avito_card and avito_search.

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 provides strong contextual guidance: it explains that in classifieds, the seller's reputation is what buyers check, implying this tool should be used when evaluating a seller's trustworthiness rather than item reviews. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when you need seller reputation, not item details,' which would make the guidance more prescriptive.

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