avito_autocomplete_search

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 useful context that results are 'publiques' and what fields the payload contains, but says nothing about rate limits, result caps, or how the dynamic values should be consumed.

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, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The second sentence is slightly vague ('identifiants et valeurs dynamiques') but still carries real information.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents (categories, cities, types, parameters) and the discovery purpose, which is enough to call it correctly. The missing piece is any guidance on the query string itself.

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 description never addresses the single 'query' parameter. The autocomplete framing implies a partial search string, but neither the 1-200 character bounds nor whether it accepts partial text or category fragments is conveyed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Obtenir') and resource ('suggestions publiques de recherche') and enumerates what comes back: catégories, villes, types, paramètres. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search tools like avito_search_ads by being a suggestion/autocomplete endpoint, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 ('Permet de découvrir des identifiants et valeurs dynamiques') implies the intended use case: resolving dynamic IDs/values, presumably before a real search. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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